Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

PERIODICAL REPORTS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he proposes to give periodical reports of the work of his Department, not excluding statements on the operations of the Advisory Council recently appointed?

The Minister of Shipping (Sir John Gilmour): I hope it will be possible from time to time to inform the House of the progress of the work of the Department.

Mr. Kirkwood: I should like to ask the Minister whether he has anything to do with the giving of orders for the building of new tramp ships by the Government?

Sir J. Gilmour: Yes, Sir; but that raises another question.

STAFF.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping how many of the personnel of his Department have had any previous acquaintance with shipping matters; and will he give the percentage of such per sons in relation to the staff as a whole?

Sir J. Gilmour: The headquarters staff of the Ministry of Shipping, excluding typing and temporary clerical staff, includes 60 persons recruited from the shipping industry on account of their specialist experience and knowledge, and 407 civil servants employed before the war in the Board of Trade on work now transferred to the Ministry of Shipping. These, together, represent 74 per cent. of the relevant staff. The remaining 26 per cent. consist of civil servants, transferred

from other Government Departments, many of whom are engaged on work common to all Departments, such as finance, establishment, legal or statistical work, or have had previous experience, either in the Ministry of Shipping during the last war or in the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman recruited persons of specialised ship knowledge from the ship-owning side? Will he at the same time consult the various trade unions of officers and men in order to ascertain whether they have any contribution to make?

Sir J. Gilmour: The great bulk of the staff was recruited before I had anything to do with the Department, but I have been in very close touch with all the bodies.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of that, but does the right hon. Gentleman now propose, since he has taken over the work of the Department, to consult the officers' and men's unions, so as to avail himself of their specialised knowledge?

Sir J. Gilmour: I have the advantage of their specialised knowledge on the Advisory Council which I have set up.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any one of these men who has any practical experience of the conditions of the men who sail the ships at sea?

Sir J. Gilmour: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the right hon. Gentleman anyone on his staff who has practical knowledge of the building of a ship, such as the manager of a shipbuilding yard, or one who could take over the management of a yard?

Sir J. Gilmour: Yes, Sir. The Department dealing with shipbuilding is at present being set up, and I am quite certain that we have practical men on it.

TONNAGE ALLOCATION (CEREALS AND COAL).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can make a statement on the allocation of shipping to meet the needs of the Cereal Board and the transport of coal, respectively?

Sir J. Gilmour: In the long distance trades, available United Kingdom tonnage is directed by the Ship Licensing


Committee to meet requirements for the import of cereals and other essential commodities. It has not yet been found necessary to impose special direction as regards transport of coal overseas. In the coasting and near seas trades, arrangements are made by co-operation between the interests concerned and the local committees established at the principal ports and acting under my direction.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties experienced in the shipment of coal and also cereals, and can he say what he proposes to do about it?

Sir J. Gilmour: I am aware that war conditions have materially interfered with the transport of some of these articles, but I think these are being gradually alleviated.

SUPPLY OF SEAMEN.

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Shipping what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the supply of personnel to British ships shall be carried out in the best interests of the nation and of maritime workers?

Sir J. Gilmour: I am glad to say that there exist at the ports efficient arrangements for the supply of seamen known as the joint supply system organised by the National Union of Seamen and the Shipping Federation.

NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD (DECISIONS).

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Shipping how far decisions of the National Maritime Board will be subject to review by the Advisory Council of the Ministry of Shipping; and, in the event of a deadlock arising on any of the board's panels, will the Advisory Council be empowered to arbitrate on the under standing that its findings shall have effect?

Sir J. Gilmour: I am confident that the presence of both shipowners and representatives of the employés associations will in itself promote good understanding, but it is not intended that the Advisory Council of the Ministry of Shipping shall review decisions of the National Maritime Board or that the council should arbitrate in the event of a deadlock arising on any of the board's panels.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Shipping whether it is his intention to revise merchant shipping legislation with a view to removing obsolescences?

Sir J. Gilmour: Power is contained in the Merchant Shipping Acts to issue regulations and instructions and to amend these from time to time; and by this means modern conditions are in general satisfactorily provided for.

Mr. Adams: The Minister will be aware that there are many aspects of the Merchant Shipping Acts which are quite obsolete and ought to be removed.

Sir J. Gilmour: I cannot think that this is the time to deal with them, but I am perfectly ready to consider any points that may arise.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in constant contact with the trade unions concerned in this matter?

Sir J. Gilmour: Yes, Sir, certainly.

ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he will define the powers of the Advisory Council of the Ministry?

Sir J. Gilmour: The Council is an advisory body, appointed to advise me on matters which I may refer to it or which members of the Council wish to bring to my notice.

Mr. Gallacher: Are there any seamen on the Advisory Council?

Sir J. Gilmour: There are representatives of the various sides of the industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the Advisory Council is the limit to which the Minister intends to proceed so far as actual consultation is concerned?

Sir J. Gilmour: Not entirely, necessarily. The Council meets once a week and people can raise any point they like relating to the industry, and I can submit opinions to them.

SHIPS (CONSTRUCTION).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Minister of Shipping the tonnage of merchant shipping under construction in the shipyards of the United Kingdom; and how much of the total is directly on Government orders?

Sir J. Gilmour: I hope that the hon. Member will not press for figures, but I may say that over one-fifth of the total tonnage at present on order or under construction is on Government account.

Mr. Maxton: Why should there be any objection to giving figures of merchant shipping in building? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures have been given of the total tonnage, the sunk tonnage, and all the rest of it? Why cannot we have the merchant tonnage that is being built?

Sir J. Gilmour: I am of opinion that it would be undesirable at the present moment to give definite figures, but I am perfectly willing to give them to any Member of Parliament in confidence.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of merchant shipping under construction on Government and private order is totally inadequate for our needs?

Mr. Maxton: That is the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RETIRED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of majors and senior captains, recently retired from the Regular Army and latterly employed on the administrative staff of the War Office, have been informed that they are to be retained as administrators and graded as civil servants; that these officers have, owing to this decision lost military status and are suffering financially and in pension prospects; and whether he will either restore them to the active list or recompense them adequately for their present employment?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The employment of retired officers, as such, in the War Office is of long standing. They serve under special conditions, and may earn a retiring allowance or gratuity in respect of such service. The question whether, if they are required during the war for appointments normally held by staff officers, they should be recalled to the active list or be otherwise specially treated is under examination.

Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter carefully as these officers consider that they have a definite grievance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. I believe some of them feel that they have a grievance. The arrangement was made some years ago, but I will look into the matter again.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that members of the Territorial Forces, who have been promoted from the ranks and who have obtained commissions in His Majesty's Forces, do not receive officer pay until such time as they have been gazetted; is their pay made retrospective; and what is the average time between the two stages?

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War how many applications for commissions, now serving, have not so far been gazetted; and must such applicants await such gazetting before receiving pay?

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are any officers employed since the beginning of the war who have not yet been gazetted; and whether such officers have been in receipt of Army pay?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: When a candidate for a commission is authorised by competent authority to join for duty before he is gazetted, his commission takes effect from the date on which he joins, and he can draw pay, in advance of the gazette, as from that date on the strength of a joining certificate signed by his commanding officer. It would need considerable research to ascertain at any given time the number of cases in which candidates have joined for duty and have not yet been gazetted.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the grave concern of soldiers who have made an extra allowance of 6d- a day to their wives owing to the inadequate amount of the Army allowance and the fact that, while the money is being stopped from the soldier's pay, it is not being paid to the wives; can he explain the delay in the payment; will he take action to hurry up


such payments; and, in view of the fact that these men are left with only 6d. per day for themselves and the poverty of their homes, will he take steps to give them free railway travelling when on leave?

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to institute a free railway pass periodically to soldiers in stations a long way from home when on leave in this country?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There are no cases in which voluntary allotments are stopped from a soldiers pay without being paid to his wife. Every married soldier is permitted to declare a voluntary allotment in addition to the qualifying allotment associated with family allowance, but in a large number of cases the desire of the man to increase his allotment is an afterthought, and the form notifying paymasters that a voluntary allotment is desired does not reach the pay office until after payment of family allowance and the qualifying allotment only has begun. This means that the original book of order forms, which provide only for the drawing of family allowance and qualifying allowance, has to be withdrawn and a new book has to be issued providing for the increase in allotment. But at no time is a soldier's account debited with a voluntary allotment until the Army allowance book for a weekly amount, containing that extra element, has been issued to the Post Office.
As regards leave, I am glad to be able to announce that troops at home will be given free railway warrants for travelling on leave twice a year, including embarkation leave.

Mr. Dobbie: If I give the Minister particulars in regard to individual cases, will he look into them?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Most certainly.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that one extra free conveyance represents an adequate concession?

Hon. Members: Two.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask whether this represents one extra free conveyance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There will be two free leaves for all soldiers in the United Kingdom. There is an embarkation leave which I recently announced, and that will

be one of the two leaves; but when the soldier goes to France he is entitled to leave from France. Therefore, he has
two free leaves.

Mr. Lawson: In the case where a man has travelled from the South of England to the North of England and has made an application for a return of the money, will the decision cover that case?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Does the hon. Member mean that it should be retrospective? I have not considered any question of making it retrospective. I have announced this decision as from to-day, but I will consider the question raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Dobbie: Do I take it that even where a man has not been sent overseas he will be entitled to two leaves in one year with a free warrant?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, that is what I have said. He may not go to France at all.

Mr. Georģe Griffiths: Does this apply to the Marines?

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst parents who have a son in the fighting services making a voluntary allotment to support the home because a supplementary allowance is not made to them as was done in the Great War; and what steps he is taking to remedy this grievance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The allotment can, if the circumstances warrant, be supplemented by an allowance.

Mr. Maxton: Why not estimate these things on something other than a Poor Law basis?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "a Poor Law basis." It is a question of fact. A mother may have several children and other sources of income. It is a question of fact as to whether the man is supporting her at all.

Mr. David Grenfell: Is it not the case that in the last war allowances were made where there were one or two boys serving? Why should we not do as much in this war as we did in the last?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In the last war the procedure was similar, except that the allowances this time are higher. In the last war an alternative allowance of 5s. a week was given to the parents of a soldier. In our system if circumstances warrant it very much more than that can be paid, up to 22s. a week.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is it not the case that in the last war there was no question of dependants receiving the 5s. a week, whereas in so many cases at present it is a question whether they are getting it at all?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is certainly a question of whether they are getting anything or nothing. It is a question of fact, and if the facts justify it they can get very much more than the 5s.

Sir W. Brass: Would it not be possible to allow them to have the 5s. in any case, and consider whether any addition can be made?

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that in actual practice, except in the case of a widow, nobody is getting anything at all from a son, that there is great resentment in the country and that a widow is very lucky if she gets anything at all?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot accept that as being the case. The scheme is perfectly plain and it has never been criticised on this ground before. This is the first question that has been addressed to me on the subject. We have made the allowance to a parent dependent on the facts of the case.

Sir W. Brass: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst widowed mothers whose sons are in the fighting forces and who have to go through a means test cross-examination before any dependants allowances are agreed to; and whether he will consider putting the widowed mother on the same footing as the soldier's wife who has a definite allowance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The claim to an allowance by a parent is clearly in a different category from that of a wife and children, and is properly subject to inquiry as to the parents' means and the contribution previously made by the soldier.

Sir W. Brass: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is great dissatisfaction in the country among the poorest people as a result of this means test examination, and will he not consider giving a definite allowance and afterwards considering whether any addition can be made?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not understand what the hon. and gallant Member means by "a means test examination." The allowance is paid as a right if a soldier has children. If he has another kind of dependant he must submit a claim. There is no way of avoiding that.

Mr. Attlee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the hardship of the rule by which smaller sums contributed by sons to the home if they are under 10s. are disregarded, and that, therefore, the very poorest people are deprived of any assistance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by sums being disregarded. If he really has a dependant the claim is substantiated.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not the case that where a son is earning £1 a week they take four fifths of that and take 7s. for his keep and say that he is contributing 8s. to the home, and that being under 10s. a week nothing is paid?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is a little difficult to follow it put in that form. I do not accept the suggestion that soldiers are badly treated on the whole. The scheme of allowances was laid down and embodied in a White Paper, and I cannot be expected to answer a series of figures such as put by the right hon. Gentleman. Upon the whole, substantial justice has been done.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no such White Paper published yet, and that under the terms of the regulations it is well nigh impossible for a parent or dependant of an unemployed man who has joined the Army to get any allowance at all?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think the scheme of allowances was published in a White Paper, but I am open to correction on that point. There was no criticism. If there is a case to be made and hon.


Members will specify the case they nave in mind, I shall have an opportunity of looking into it.

Mr. Williams: I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the question of dependants' allowances.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a great deal of hardship is being caused in Cheltenham to the wives of men serving in the Forces because no allowance is paid for a child of 14 years of age, while under a local by-law the child has to remain at school till he is 15 years of age; and will he extend the age to which allowances may be paid to 15 years of age, and make the payments retrospective?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The regulations have always provided for the issue of family allowance for children within the age limit up to which whole-time school attendance is required by law, including local by-laws, and authority has recently been given for the continuance of allowances for children who remain at school after passing that age.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in point of fact, these mothers are not receiving allowances for children of 14 years of age who are still at school?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If they are not, the regulations are not being observed. The hon. Gentleman put me a general question, and I have given him an answer. The allowances are payable not only up to the school-leaving age, but as long as the child remains at school, even after passing that age.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what steps parents should take to obtain the allowance to which they are entitled and which they are not getting at present?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They should make application in the ordinary way.

Miss Ward: Have instructions been issued to the appropriate authority? I think that is where the difficulty occurs.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think any difficulty arises about this. It is a perfectly well-known practice. This is a question about some children in Chelten-

ham. I can only assert that the regulations would not justify the withholding of allowances, and every paymaster knows that.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will authorise members of local authorities to witness the signature of forms of application for Army dependants' allowances?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on Tuesday, 3rd October.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider making compulsory the statutory full allocation by a serving son to a widowed mother who, in peace-time, was wholly dependent on him?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have no power to compel a soldier to contribute to the support of a widowed mother except as a condition of the issue of an allowance to her from Army funds, where this is admissible.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: In view of the hardship caused to the dependants in these particular cases, could not my right hon. Friend suggest that the welfare officers should make it plain to these men the hardship they are causing through making inadequate allotments?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is an instinct of nature rather than a provision of the law that a man must contribute to the support of his widowed mother when she is in need, but it would be an innovation to make it a compulsory provision. I will willingly hear what the welfare officers may have to say on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the grant of an allowance to a working housekeeper in the case of a widower called up for service and leaving behind him three or four motherless children to be tended by her; and whether he can state the Government's intentions on this issue?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: An allowance is already made in such a case. Where the liabilities of the household are such that the normal allowance is found to be in-


sufficient, application for a special allowance can be made to the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee.

VACCINATION.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps can soldiers, who object to vaccination, take to avoid being vaccinated; and whether he will ensure that this procedure is made known to all soldiers before they are vaccinated?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: A soldier can refuse to be vaccinated. The fact that vaccination is voluntary is made known in orders and regulations dealing with the matter.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the soldier who died recently from post-vaccinal encephalitis after recent vaccination at Leeds was vaccinated with Government lymph; whether any rabbits had been used in the manufacture of the lymph in question; and what steps are his Department taking to prevent the occurrence of such cases so far as the manufacture of lymph is concerned?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The soldier in question was vaccinated with Government lymph, that is calf lymph, and this is the only lymph which is employed to vaccinate soldiers. Rabbits may occasionally be used at an earlier stage in the process of the production of the lymph, but there is no evidence that post-vaccinal encephalitis is attributable to this. Everything is done, in accordance with the standards of the Therapeutic Substances Act, to ensure that the lymph is safe.

Mr. Leach: Will compensation be paid to the parents, who are not well off?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If death is attributable to military causes, naturally they will receive compensation.

Mr. Leach: Will compensation be paid on these facts?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot say, because I do not know the facts. I am answering a question about lymph, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the pension in this particular case, I will willingly give him an answer after looking up that point.

PASSPORT APPLICATION.

Mr. J. P. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Miss Joan Richardson, Bermersyde, Sea View, Warrenpoint, made an application for an exit permit to proceed by air to Singapore in order to marry Lieutenant D. E. D. Morris, of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, attached to the Malay Regiment; that such application has been refused by the director of movements of the War Office; and, in view of the fact that a passage has been book on an air liner for 23rd November, 1939, will he reconsider the decision not to give permission to Miss Richardson to leave the country in order that she may get married?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is not considered desirable, in present circumstances, that any military families should proceed to Mediterranean and Far East stations in addition to those who were there before the outbreak of war.

Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the same date and for the same purpose a lady made an application to go to Calcutta which was granted? Why the discrimination?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Passports Office will presumably be able to give the information. I do not know about all the ladies who have been given passport's.

HORSES (PURCHASE).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give owners of suitable horses who are desirous of selling at a reasonable price an opportunity to register their names and addresses, together with the number and particulars of animals available, thus obviating the necessity of impressing or buying from unwilling sellers, and denuding some districts while others are left comparatively untouched?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. The War Office will be most happy to act upon this suggestion.

PRISMATIC BINOCULARS.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office has the recorded knowledge of that shortage of prismatic binoculars with six to eight magnifications which caused trouble up to


the second year of the Great War; and why the War Office neglected, a year ago, to secure an adequate supply of this essential equipment to meet expansion of the Army, instead of having to appeal now to the public in a hurry and at the last moment and to search for binoculars in retail shops?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: On the basis of the scale of provision approved for the Army up to February, 1939, the available sources of supply were adequate.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does not my right hon. Friend think that is a very poor result after so many years, and are the firms to blame, or is it the War Office?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. and gallant Friend is asking me a question about the past. Up to the date in question, there were only five British Divisions preparing for service overseas, and none of them for the Continent. It is since that date that a very much enlarged programme has been adopted.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend do better in future in this respect?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, with whom the matter rests, has made an appeal, and is getting binoculars. I am not certain how many, but that is a question that could be addressed to him.

Sir Joseph Nail: How was it that the War Office had not then prepared for the existing 12 divisions of the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. Friend knows quite well, I think, that we had five divisions being prepared, and that the Territorial divisions at that time were only authorised to have, in the manner explained to Parliament, a minimum scale of training equipment.

RATION ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is much dissatisfaction among the members of an Infantry regiment, at Greenock, in respect that they receive 2s. o½d. ration money, whereas members of the Royal Artillery receive 2s. 6d., and have received 2s. 4d. back money as against 10s.; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am making inquiries, but the allowance paid to the Artillery should have been the same as that paid to the Infantry. In any case, both units are now being fed in kind.

CENSORSHIP DEPARTMENT (STAFF).

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any bar to the employment of married women in the Censor's office?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir, but preference is given to men and unmarried women.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Secretary of State for War why people engaged in London to work in the Censor's office in Liverpool have to pay their own railway fare and 10s. 6d. hotel expenses for the first night they spend in Liverpool?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is the normal rule throughout the Civil Service in such cases that individuals should pay their own fares when travelling to take up duty on first appointment, and that they should pay for their own accommodation.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is creating considerable hardship among the poorer people who are engaged in London and then at the wish of the Civil Service sent up to Liverpool?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is a rule throughout the Civil Service that men or women should present themselves at their own expense at the place at which they are to be employed. It applies not only to these particular persons, but to the whole Civil Service.

Mr. Maxton: Is it a rule in the Army that people sent on War Office duty should not be paid?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. Nor is it the rule in the Civil Service if they are sent somewhere on duty. This is a question of taking up a first appointment.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Censor's Department is dispensing with the services of girl guides at 15s. a week and employing men at 48s. a week, as girl guides give much better service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The girl guides are to be replaced by adult ex-service messengers, as it is not the policy to employ juvenile labour on such duties.

POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the large number of skilled Post Office employés now serving with His Majesty's Forces; and will he consider whether their special qualifications can be used to make the field post office arrangements more efficient?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Postal Services, Royal Engineers, are staffed by specialist postal employés, and there is a waiting list of such men from which all requirements can be met.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that four parcels, properly addressed to a soldier with the British Expeditionary Force, over a period of six weeks, have not been delivered, which is causing anxiety to the soldier and to his friends at home; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy such a delay?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Member gives me no chance of identifying the facts to which he refers.

Mr. Ammon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he acknowledged only the other day the receipt of a letter from me dealing with these facts and that I raised this question last week?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that he has sent me particulars of this case?

Mr. Ammon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent him letters from the man and the man's mother and that he has acknowledged them?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I particularly asked whether such a letter had been received from the hon. Gentleman, and I was told not. If it has been received I sincerely apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I did ask that question.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is it really impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to blame the German wireless for this mistake?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As far as I understand there is no mistake except that I have not received the particulars.

DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY (HEADQUARTERS).

Mr. Ritson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider making Brancepeth Castle the headquarters of the Durham Light Infantry?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: This question could be more suitably considered when the war is over.

LORRIES (IMPRESSMENT).

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any discretion is used in the impressment of lorries for Army service so as to avoid the ruin of small businesses; whether, in the event of a one-man carrier and coal merchant business having to be abandoned owing to impressment of the lorry, any compensation is paid; and, in particular, whether he can make any statement about the case of Francis Winton, Granco, Dunning, Perthshire, whose only lorry was impressed on 7th September, but was released on explanation that it was the sole means of livelihood of the owner and was subsequently impressed again on 17th September, with the result that the business of the owner has been ruined?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In the initial pressure, it was not always possible to avoid the impressment of single vehicles owned by small firms or individuals, but such vehicles will not now be taken. Payment in all cases is on the basis of assessed value and any necessary delivery expenses. There is no record of the impressment of Mr. Winton's vehicle on 7th September, and the officer who impressed it on 18th September has no recollection of any protest. Mr. Winton obtained a substitute vehicle on the same day, and it is not clear, therefore, how the termination of Mr. Winton's business can have been due to the impressment of his vehicle.

BERKSHIRE YEOMANRY.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the Berkshire Yeomanry, Royal Artillery, while some men have been given beds and underclothing, others who joined voluntarily are still sleeping on the ground and without greatcoats and underclothing; and if he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will read to my hon. and gallant Friend the report I have received from the Command:
Deputy Assistant Director Ordnance Services, Division, telephones he has seen Officer Commanding, Berkshire Yeomanry, to-day who states he has been done so well by Ordnance that he has no complaint of any sort. Has got everything including greatcoats, underclothing, double bunk beds, and is very pleased and satisfied. No men are sleeping on bare floor. Each man has got palliasse and four blankets. Officer Commanding cannot understand question.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this the sort of question that is inspired from German sources?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I did not say that any question was inspired by German sources, but the hon. Gentleman and the House and the country will recognise how true these suggestions are.

Mr. Lunn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that thousands of men in the Army in this country have not got greatcoats?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think there should be any man in the British Army without a greatcoat. [HON. MEMBERS: "But are there any?"] There should not be, because adequate provision is made. I have heard on the German wireless that there are thousands of men without greatcoats, but it is not a fact. If a man has not a military overcoat, he can either be paid an allowance for the use of his own, or his unit can provide him with a civilian overcoat, and, in any event, the shortage is being rapidly overtaken.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT PERSONNEL (HUTS).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to have the provision of huts completed for the anti-aircraft personnel; and whether, where huts are not completed, he will authorise general officers commanding to purchase through ordinary trade channels, if not available through Army stores, additional equipment to provide adequate protection?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Hutting to provide sleeping and feeding accommodation for all anti-aircraft personnel should be completed by the middle of December. General officers commanding have authority to exceed normal scales of equipment when extra protection is required, and, if Army stocks were not

available, they would be supplemented by special purchases, made locally if necessary.

INOCULATION.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his repeated assurances that the inoculation of soldiers is a voluntary treatment, he proposes not to stop the pay of uninoculated soldiers suffering from enteric fever during their illness?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Refusal to be inoculated does not render a soldier liable to stoppage of pay.

NON-COMBATANT DUTIES.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the recommendations made by tribunals that certain men registered by them for non-combatant duties only should be given service in the Royal Army Medical Corps; and if he can give an assurance that such recommendations will be carried out?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Such men will be employed only on non-combatant duties, either in the Royal Army Medical Corps or elsewhere.

Mr. Harvey: There is, therefore, no assurance that they will be employed in the Royal Army Medical Corps?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They will be employed only on non-combatant duties.

Mr. Harvey: My question was whether there would be an assurance that they would be employed in the Royal Army Medical Corps if so recommended by the tribunal?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That depends on whether there are the necessary vacancies for them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has there been an official definition of what is meant by non-combatant service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot say without notice.

WOUND STRIPES.

Briģadier-General Spears: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the French Army, those who were entitled to wear wound stripes in the last war have received permission to wear them to-day; and whether, as a similar privilege would be greatly


appreciated by many who cannot be given the same posts of danger for reasons of age to-day, he will consider introducing the same measure in the British Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the wearing of wound stripes is revived in this war, I will certainly consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will endeavour to make available to those members of National Defence companies, in uniform, going home on leave by coach services, facilities to travel at reduced fares, as many of them are unable to afford the journey at present full rates?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and it is not thought that it would be practicable to make any general arrangement of this character without imposing a charge on public funds.

Sir I, Albery: Cannot my right hon. Friend find some way of helping these old soldiers, many of whom cannot afford to go home on leave?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was asked about a particular way. The railway companies do make concessions, but there are so many transport companies that it has not been found practicable to make arrangements with them all.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES.

ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many soldiers and their wives, who have entered into financial obligations for buying their house when in civil life, are unable to keep these payments up to date on their military pay; what financial assistance is he prepared to give these people; and is he ready now, in view of the many anomalies in regard to soldier's pay, at once to make considerable increase in such pay?

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the wife of No. W/6083670, Private C. E. G. Watts, 2/5th Queen's Royal Regiment, Royal West Surreys, has to

keep herself and seven children, after paying rent and insurances, on 29s. 4d. a week; that she applied for public assistance and was granted 20s. by the relieving officer, who instructed her to apply to the regimental paymaster for supplementary assistance; that the regimental paymaster, Ashford, replied informing Mrs. Watts that she was receiving the full amount of family allowance to which she was entitled; and will steps be taken to ensure that in this and similar cases the regimental paymaster shall assist the soldier's wife in getting the case properly put before the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee?

Mr. Georģe Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War the purpose of the inquiry conducted by representatives of the War Office in towns in South Wales; has he received a report of this inquiry; and will it be published?

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for war whether he will now reconsider an increase in the allowance for children of men serving in His Majesty's Forces to the rate of 5s. for each child?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As I have a long reply to make, perhaps I may be allowed to make it at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the House is aware sailors, soldiers and airmen are paid upon a progressive scale, which rises in accordance with their ability and length of service. At the same time each man is provided with clothing, food and accommodation. In addition, if he is married, he is entitled, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, and provided that he makes an allotment to his wife, to an allowance in respect of her and of any children he may have. The minimum rate of marriage allowance which was until April, 1938, 7s., was then raised to 17s., an increase which gave general satisfaction, and at this figure it now stands. Shortly before the war the qualifying age for marriage allowance was reduced to 20 and for the period of the war there is no age limit at all.
The allowances for children are 5s. for the first child, 3s. for the second, 2s. for the third and is for every child thereafter. These allowances, in conjunction with the wife's allowance and the allotment made by the soldier, had under


peace conditions been accepted as adequately meeting the circumstances. Since then, however, it has been represented in regard to some of those, who have left their civilian occupations and who have had to accommodate themselves to new conditions, that hardship has arisen, especially since these men, unlike regular soldiers who have had opportunities of increasing their pay, are mostly starting at the bottom of the ladder.
A Debate recently took place in this House, in which it was stated that the commitment of rent was, in many instances, out of relation to the allowances received and that because of this factor in particular, moneys which might have been spent upon the family sustenance were hypothecated to this item.
Some ten days ago officials were despatched from the War Office to investigate conditions in the South Wales area, where it had been reported that difficulties were being encountered. I have now heard from the officials in question that high rent is indeed the principal cause of strain upon the family resources. I am glad to say that the machinery for the payment of family allowances was, generally speaking, reported to be working smoothly.
His Majesty's Government have had these matters under consideration and I am glad to announce that the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee will be empowered henceforward to grant up to £2 a week exclusive of and in addition to the other allowances received from Service Departments, instead of as at present a maximum of £2 inclusive of such allowances. This will enable additional assistance to be granted in cases of hardship due to special factors such as high rent. I will circulate to the House some supplementary particulars including a description of the procedure to be followed, and I trust that this will be made widely known.
It is hoped that the new arrangements which I have described will relieve the main cause of any hardship which may have been felt. In addition, however, His Majesty's Government have decided in the conditions of the time to raise the rates of allowance for children after the first child, and in future instead of these rates being 3s. for the second child, 2s. for the third, and is each for subsequent

children, they will be 4s. for the second child and 3s. each for all other children. Thus, to take the large family for which it has most frequently been represented that the allowances are insufficient, in a household with eight children, which is possibly not normal, there will be paid in respect of a soldier on the lowest rate of pay to the wife 17s., plus 7s. allotment in respect of herself equals 24s., plus 5s. for the first child equals 29s., plus 4s. for the second child equals 33s., plus 3s. each for the remaining six, equals 51s., and further, in the event of any special circumstances such as high rent a claim can be made and met to the extent of a further £2a week should the claim be justified. In order that the new scheme may come into operation with machinery adequate to cope with it, payment of increased children's allowance will begin in three or four weeks' time and will be retrospective to 13th November or the nearest related pay day.
The cost to the taxpayer will naturally depend on the numbers and age groups of those enlisted. On present figures it will add in the case of the Army alone to an existing annual expenditure of some £10,000,000 on children's allowances, some £2,000,000 and this is expected to be doubled in due course. These figures exclude the present cost, estimated at some £25,000,000, of the allowance in respect of the wives themselves, which is a rising figure, and the cost of the allowances to be made by the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee which cannot be estimated. His Majesty's Government trust that the easement of the position for the families of soldiers, sailors and airmen which I have announced will be found generally acceptable.

Mr. T. Williams: While we naturally welcome the concessions which have been made, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that the total cost to the Army of separation and children's allowances will be £10,000,000, or whether he meant that the extra cost of the revised allowances would be £10,000,000?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I said that the present cost to the Army alone of children's allowances was £10,000,000, and these concessions will add another £2,000,000. which sum will in due course be doubled and, therefore, become £4,000,000. The cost of the other separation allowances,


those of the wives, for instance, is £25,000,000 a year, which will also rise considerably.

Mr. Butcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the allowances compare with those in the French Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I believe the maximum allowance in France for a wife is 14s. a week.

Mr. Dobbie: The Minister has referred to an allowance for rent. Does that also include the obligations of men who were buying their houses and are under financial obligations in consequence?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, most certainly. They will be entitled to make a claim, and their claim can be met in appropriate circumstances to the extent of £2, exclusive and apart from the allowances which I have announced.

Colonel Nathan: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make the possible £2 retrospective to the beginning of the war; or, if that be impossible, can he promise that a discretion shall be given to the committee in special cases of hardship which have arisen since the beginning of the war?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would not like to say more than that they will date from yesterday, but I shall be ready to see whether that is possible. The hon. and gallant Member will realise that every claim varies in character, and it would give rise to considerable delays, and perhaps some disappointment, if I made such an announcement now.

Sir J. Smedley Crooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he has made will give general satisfaction throughout the country?

Sir W. Brass: In view of the fact that these concessions are made for rent, would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to give some indication to the country generally of what are the basic rents above which claims can be made, so as to clarify the position?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That, again, is a matter for this Special Allowances Committee, which has to take all the circumstances into account, and I think it would be unfair to name a stipulated rent and say everyone beneath it will be excluded.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is anything being done for dependants other than wives and children?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I read with very great care the Debate on this subject which took place in the House, and I have met all the points which were made in that Debate. If hon. Members look at the Debate they will see that the real grievance was the high rent, and that I have endeavoured to meet, and in addition the Government have increased the children's allowances. No case was stated on behalf of other dependants which is not already met under the present procedure. Obviously, we want to treat our armed forces as fairly as possible within the resources of the country, and as no case for dependants was made which is not already met I have not included dependants, because the Government have not considered that matter.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I did state in the course of my speech that in the Great War any mother could make a claim to 5s. per week for every unmarried son under 26 years of age? Under the Regulations now made no mother, widowed or otherwise, can make any claim at all, unless and until she has passed through the means test laid down in the regulations. Is he also not aware that I definitely said in my speech that I did not want to prolong it because so many other Members wished to speak?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Member looks at what we are doing now and what we did in the last war as a whole he will find that more generous treatment is now being provided. In the case of dependency there must, of course, be an inquiry to establish the facts; there are no other means of doing so. A mother who is totally dependent can get up to 26s., I think, and not 5s. We make it a question of fact. I think the scheme as a whole is more favourable, and if it is suggested that it is not I am willing to look into it, but I think what I have said is accurate.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the investigations will not be carried out by the investigators of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and also ask when the rules governing these new special allowances will be issued?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As I have said in my answer, a full description of the whole procedure covering the points raised by my hon. Friend will be circulated.

Miss Ward: May I have an answer to my first question?

Following are the supplementary particulars:

Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee.
This Committee was originally appointed in June, 1939, by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Labour, to consider applications for special monetary assistance from those who, notwithstanding the special protection afforded by the Orders in Council made under the Military Training Act, 1939, and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act, 1939, and any normal allowances granted for families and dependants, were unable, by reason of undergoing a course of training or of being called out for service under those Acts, to meet their financial obligations, whereby serious hardship was caused.
On the outbreak of war it was decided that the Committee should deal with similar cases of hardship due to the calling up of men for war service. The Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Charles Doughty, K.C., deals with applications both from officers and from other ranks.
In order to simplify the procedure and expedite consideration of these applications, each of which requires separate investigation, a new procedure is being introduced which is as follows: —
When a soldier is serving overseas, a form of application (No. M.S.A.C. 21) may be obtained by the wife or dependant from any local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board or from the Regimental Paymaster of the man's unit. The wife or dependant should send a postcard to the local Unemployment Assistance Board Office, or to the Regimental Paymaster marked "Special Allowance" and stating her (or his) name and the address to which the form should be sent. The addresses of the Unemployment Assistance Board offices and of paymasters may be obtained at any Post Office. The form may then be completed and signed by the wife or dependant on the soldier's behalf, and should be returned direct to the office from which it was received.
Where the man is in this country, he should make application himself on a form which he will obtain from his Commanding Officer.
When the completed form is received, the necessary investigation will be carried out as rapidly as possible and the application transmitted for the consideration of the Advisory Committee. Some measure of decentralisation of the work of the Committee is about to be tried experimentally with a view to seeing whether the machinery would thereby be improved.

For the Royal Navy the Director of Navy Accounts, Admiralty, Bath, Somerset, and for the Royal Air Force the Director of Accounts, Air Ministry, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, take the place of the Regimental Paymaster; in the case of the Royal Marines the Paymaster at the Royal Marines Division to which the man belongs.

DUTY-FREE CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to make a statement regarding the despatch of duty-free cigarettes and tobacco to members of the Forces?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am glad to be able to have now been made. As the statement describing these arrangements is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, arrange to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir T. Moore: May I take it then that the answer is in the affirmative?

Sir J. Simon: I hope my hon. Friend will find the answer very satisfactory.

Following is the statement:

As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 26th October, proposals made by interested traders to facilitate the despatch by post, free of duty, of small quantities of cigars, cigarettes and tobacco have been under consideration. I am glad to say that it has been found possible to reduce the limit of weight for packages of tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes which may be sent from a bonded warehouse by authorised post, from 2 lbs. to 4 ozs. This new limit of 4 ozs. will come into operation on Thursday, 23rd November. It represents roughly 100 cigarettes, though the exact figure would vary according to the brand of cigarette concerned.

The arrangement will apply to members of all three of His Majesty's Fighting Forces serving in France and to Naval personnel serving in His Majesty's seagoing ships in commission. As regards warships, I should explain that Naval personnel can already buy cigarettes and tobacco duty-free in messes and canteens when serving in most of His Majesty's ships, but there are certain categories of ships which do not enjoy this privilege, and the new arrangements cannot be


applied to the Naval personnel serving in such ships. If duty-free parcels are sent to these ships, they will be returned to the manufacturer, who will inform the donor that they cannot be sent under these arrangements.

Those who wish to send a parcel under the scheme should give their order, with the requisite address, either to their tobacco retailer or direct to the manufacturer, who will pack, address, and post the parcel. My right hon. Friend, the Postmaster-General, has agreed to the use of the letter post for such packages, and in this connection I may mention that for packets not exceeding 8 ozs. in weight letter post is cheaper than parcel post.

I may add that parcels sent under these arrangements will be subject neither to French import restrictions nor to French Customs duty. I should like to take this opportunity to place on record the appreciation of His Majesty's Government for the French Government's generous action in this matter.

LORD NUFFIELD'S GIFT.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has given further consideration to the offer made to him of £50,000; and whether he can now make a statement?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Since the hon. Member asked a question on this subject last week, Lord Nuffield, in addition to his other great benefactions in the same direction, has, I am happy to say, offered a further £50,000 for amenities for men of the three fighting Services. By Lord Nuffield's desire, £15,000 of this sum is to be spent on providing wireless sets for the Forces in France, and the rest will be distributed proportionately among the three Services.
On behalf of my Service colleagues and of the Army Council, I should like to express deep gratitude for a gift that will give much comfort and happiness.

MEETINGS OF MINISTERS.

Mr. John Morģan: asked the Prime Minister whether Ministers outside the War Cabinet meet regularly as an executive group for the purpose of co-ordinating the policy and work of their respective Departments in trade and home affairs; and whether he has under consideration

any precise proposals for improving upon the present arrangements?

Sir J. Simon: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 18th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward). As regards the second part of the question, the Prime Minister sees no reason at the present time to suggest any alteration in the present arrangements, which, however, will be subject to review in the light of experience.

Mr. Morģan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the general dislocation on the home front, due to the obvious lack of contact between Departments; and does he not consider that that is information or evidence?

Sir J. Simon: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT to which I have referred him. I have read it carefully, and I know that the facts set out there bear on the very point which he has put.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill?

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given by the Government to the further progress of the Criminal Justice: Bill; and whether he can make an announcement?

Mr. Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the time and labour which has been spent upon the Criminal Justice Bill and the great importance of the Measure, he will arrange to find time for the remaining stages before the close of the Session?

Sir J. Simon: While the Government are in full sympathy with the desire to complete the work already done on this important Measure, I regret that further consideration has confirmed the view that it is not possible to proceed with this Bill. If the Bill were to be taken through its remaining stages in this House and through all its stages in another place, the task falling on those responsible for the Bill would be by no means light. The Bill contains a number


of provisions on which questions both of principle and detail would arise for discussion. The Ministers in charge of the Bill would have to devote time and attention to these questions and would have to call on the experienced officials of more than one Government Department for information and advice. The question how to reduce the necessary work to a minimum has been carefully considered, but examination of the problem shows that, whatever methods were adopted for expediting the progress of the Bill, the expenditure of a very large amount of time and labour would be unavoidable. That time and labour could only be found by diverting to this subject efforts which are required in present circumstances for a purpose which must take precedence over all other purposes.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Would it not be possible to obtain from Members in all parts of the House, and particularly from expert lawyers, assistance in drafting the necessary Amendments; and would not the Government consider whether exceptional steps should not be taken to meet an exceptional need at the present time, and to show that Parliament can pass a Measure of this kind, even during war-time; and is it not also desirable to avoid the waste which would be caused, if all the work that has been done in Committee on this Measure during the past year were to go for nothing?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, in his supplementary question, has, if I may say so, faced the real difficulty. The difficulty is not one of finding people to draft clauses but lies in the fact that the big problems connected with this Bill would necessarily require the serious attention of important officials in more than one Government Department. As to the view that all the work that has been done on the Bill would be lost, I do not agree. If there is a body of opinion in favour of a Bill of this sort, doubtless the Bill could be revived later, but I am afraid that it cannot be regarded, in present circumstances, as a war Measure.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the widespread desire that the work already done on this Bill should not be lost, would the Government consider whether, if they cannot find the necessary time to deal with it in this Session, the Bill could not be revived at

an early date—not leaving it till the end of the war—and the same methods as were adopted in the case of the Parliament Act taken in order that the work on the Bill should not be lost?

Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman will see that the real difficulty is still one which lies elsewhere. This question has been looked into very closely by the Home Office and by the Scottish Office, and it is plain that if this Measure is to be dealt with now, under the present critical conditions, it will involve a tremendous amount of work on the part of officials, for which provision cannot really be made at this time.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to close his mind to the possibility of reintroducing the Bill at a period earlier than the end of the war, when, it may be, the pressure will not be so great?

Sir J. Simon: I agree that circumstances may change and to some extent relieve the pressure, and if that happens it will certainly be possible to reconsider the matter.

Sir Joseph Lamb: In view of the great interest taken in this question by so many hon. Members opposite, would it not be a good thing to postpone the war while it is being dealt with?

Mr. Bevan: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, is it not possible that, in a few months time, we shall find ourselves a little easier in these respect's; is it not undesirable to kill the Bill, and could it not be carried over and reintroduced, at its present stage, as has been done with other Measures in the past?

Sir J. Simon: I think that is, in substance, the question which was put before. If conditions change and make it easier for us to deal with a certain matter, then, by all means, let us keep open the question of whether it can be taken up or not, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend, as Leader of the House, would advise that we should, for the first time, carry over a public Bill to another Session.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of fact, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past few years it has been done on


several occasions in order to keep Bills alive; and would it not be possible to reintroduce this Bill at its present stage?

Mr. Mander: Would not the most effective way of keeping the Bill alive be to continue the Session for some weeks further, and not to have such an early Prorogation, and then it might be possible to deal with the Measure?

Mr. De la Bére: Why not wait and see?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Prime Minister whether he has observed the increasing number of questions to Ministers for oral answer remaining unanswered on account of their not being reached within the allotted time; and whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Standing Orders either to limit the number of questions a Member may ask at the same Sitting, or to extend the time allotted to questions, or to restrict the putting of supplementary questions to elucidate answer to Members whose names appear on the Order Paper?

Sir J. Simon: Since the new order of questions which the Prime Minister announced on Thursday, 26th October, has been in operation, there has been some reduction in the number of questions not reached. My right hon. Friend does not believe that the expedients suggested in the question would commend themselves to the House. The large number of supplementary questions asked undoubtedly causes the difficulty about which complaint is made, and in this connection I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the many appeals made by Mr. Speaker. The remedy, as Mr. Speaker has pointed out, rests with hon. Members themselves. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will cooperate to secure the successful working of the new arrangement of questions in the general interest. The Prime Minister would also like to reinforce Mr. Speaker's appeal and to ask hon. Members to reduce the number of supplementary questions as far as possible, so that we may attempt to get through more oral questions each day.

FORESTRY COMMISSION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to prolong the Forestry Commission which is due to come to an end on 30th November, 1939?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir.

COAL PRODUCTION (COST).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the saving to the Treasury of the Government paying such increases in the cost of coal as are necessary instead of allowing the price to rise, thereby avoiding all-round increases in subsequent stages of production of munitions, he ultimate cost of which inevitably falls upon the Exchequer?

Sir J. Simon: I am afraid that I could not adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The hon. Member will appreciate that the whole increase of cost of coal production must necessarily be much greater than that part of it which ultimately finds its way into the cost of munitions.

COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC POLICY.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the close association of Lord Stamp and Mr. Henry Clay with the Bank of England and the consequent preponderance of Bank of England influence among the economic advisers to the Government, he will take steps immediately to broaden the character of the Committee on Economic Policy by the appointment of additional members to be representative of commercial banking, industry, and labour?

Sir J. Simon: The survey conducted by Lord Stamp and the other economists assisting him is not, nor is it intended to be, representative of any type of special interest and is not, I am sure, subject to any special influence. I do not propose to extend its membership in the manner suggested.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend give this proposal further consideration, and does he not think that to widen the representation in the way that


I have suggested would give the public a certain amount of confidence in this committee?

Sir J. Simon: I really think that anyone who considers the width of the interests of these economists, including Lord Stamp, will feel that they cannot fairly be considered by anybody as representing a special point of view.

EXPORT TRADE (CO-ORDINATION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for his economic advisers to set up a coordinating committee of representatives from various Government Departments concerned with export trade, as absence of a continuously informative contact between those Departments is, for that single reason, holding up existing export trade and preventing the making of war time adjustments, designed by traders, to increase our exports?

Sir J. Simon: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no group of subjects which is more closely engaging the attention of all concerned and that full liaison is maintained between the various Departments. I would add that a special section of the Department of Overseas Trade has been established to enable exporters to obtain, so far as possible, through one channel, advice and information on the problems which arise under war conditions and which may be the concern of a number of Departments.

Mr. Shinwell: As Chairman of this Economic Coordinating Committee, is the right hon. Gentleman able to devote much time to it?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir.

HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY (INCOME TAX).

Mr. Storey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when paying £600,000 Income Tax two months before it was due, the Halifax Building Society deducted the 2½ per cent. discount to which they were entitled for such prepayment?

Sir J. Simon: I am unable to furnish my hon. Friend with the information for

which he asks, as it is contrary to practice to disclose particulars relating to the taxation affairs of a particular taxpayer.

Mr. Loģan: To what deduction would one be entitled?

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (LOANS).

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that claims against the Czech assets blocked in this country were lodged, by request of the Bank of England, as long ago as 30th April last, and that the coupons on certain Czech bonds which were due on 1st October have not been paid; and whether, in view of the hardship to individuals involved and the fact that it is undesirable to keep a sum of money amounting in the aggregate to over £16,000,000 immobilised at the present time, he will submit the promised scheme for dealing with these assets to the House before the end of the present Session?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) on 17th October, to which I cannot at present add anything.

Mr. Boothby: Does not my right hon. Friend think that nine months is rather a long period of gestation in a matter of this particular kind?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: As the sterling value of the blocked pound has increased by about 25 per cent. during the past three months, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the aggregate amount of blocked assets is now sufficient to meet all the claims?

Sir J. Simon: I should like notice of that question.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that there is no adequate scheme of property insurance, and that certain building societies now refuse advances to purchasers unless over 40 years of age and able to supply additional collateral security, he proposes to take any action?

Sir J. Simon: On the question of insurance of property against war risks, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement of Government policy which was published with the report of Lord Weir's Committee (Command Paper 6116). As regards the conditions on which advances are made by building societies, I cannot intervene in a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the societies themselves.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the circumstances mentioned in both the first and second parts of the question impose very severe hardships and apprehensions on a large number of individuals in this country?

Sir J. Simon: I do not quite see that I can add to the answer that I have given. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that it is not a matter upon which I can pronounce.

WAR-TIME WEALTH INCREASES (TAXATION).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding a scheme announced in his Budget speech regarding the taxation of increases in wealth during the war?

Sir J. Simon: I am not at present in a position to add to the previous replies on this subject.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In view of the fact that this proposal was put forward by the Prime Minister as a counterpart of conscription, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself made this an integral part of his Budget, are we really to infer that any steps towards implementing this scheme are to be left to a time after the war, when the continuance of this Government in office is problematical?

Sir J. Simon: The consideration of the matter is certainly not being postponed till after the war. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will appreciate that while the importance of the subject is not overlooked, there are a great many matters of immediate urgency and importance to which we have to devote our attention.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If such a proposal is to be considered, will my right hon. Friend consider a change in the value of money?

Sir J. Simon: All relevant facts will be borne in mind.

Mr. Mander: How is it possible to find out what the increase in wealth during the war has been unless a valuation of some kind is taken now?

Sir J. Simon: I think it is essentially a matter of comparison.

BANKERS' INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the taxpayer will derive any benefit from those profits of the steel industry which will accrue to the Bank of England by way of credits granted by the Bankers' Industrial Development Company and the Securities Investment Trust?

Sir J. Simon: The Bankers' Industrial Development Company, in which the Bank of England has an interest, was formed in 1930 to provide the means for financing schemes of reorganisation submitted by the basic industries of the country at a time when it was desirable to supplement the ordinary financial machinery available for this purpose. The company was formed at a time when the Lord Privy Seal in the then Labour Government had this subject under review; it had his approval, and the details of it were announced by him in the House on 15th April of that year. The company replaced for this purpose the Securities Management Trust, which had been formed earlier by the Bank of England. Neither company was formed for the making of profit in the ordinary sense, but in so far as any profits might accrue, they would, of course, be subject to taxation in the ordinary way.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to secure the publication of the accounts of the Bankers' Industrial Development Company, especially in view of the fact that their authorised capital is £6,000,000?

Sir J. Simon: I should prefer that question to be put on the Paper.

CURRENCY (POSTAL ORDERS).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of gambling in football pools being again permitted, it is intended to withdraw postal orders from ordinary currency tender and restore the poundage charges?

Sir J. Simon: This matter is under consideration, but at the moment I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 26th September.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the evacuation of Departments to remote places from London; and whether, in view of the present circum stances at home, these changes can be delayed so as to prevent much disturbance, distress, and financial worry to civil servants?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crooks hank): No change is contemplated in the plans for the possible evacuation of Government Departments, but the programme for immediate evacuation is approaching completion. There remains the move of a substantial number of the staff of one Department as soon as certain arrangements for their accommodation are completed, and there may be one other move of some magnitude. There is also likely to be a move of small numbers of staff belonging to two or three Departments which have already evacuated a section of their staff and which require the additional numbers to complete the arrangements already made. The whole question is kept under constant review in the light of circumstances.

BILLETING ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that three women employed by the Government were recently billeted at 2d. per night each on a Middleton, Lancashire, woman, aged 76, drawing out-relief; and who was responsible for this?

Captain Crookshank: I have made inquiries into the matter, and I understand

that the billeting of the women in question was arranged by the Air Force authorities.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that 2d. a night for billeting purposes is really good enough in these days?

Captain Crookshank: It really does not matter what I think, because this is a matter for the Air Ministry. Questions on this subject should, therefore, be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Davies: Do I understand that payments for billeting come from the Air Ministry and not from the Treasury?

Captain Crookshank: What I said was that this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this amount is not even the amount laid down in the Army and Air Force Act?

Captain Crookshank: I must repeat that this is not a matter with which I am concerned. It is a matter for the Air Ministry.

UNITY FOOTBALL POOLS.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the monopoly granted to Unity Football Pools, Government supervision will be exercised over this business; and in particular whether Inland Revenue officials will examine the accounts at regular intervals?

Captain Crookshank: There has been no grant of any monopoly, and Government supervision, which would require legislation, does not appear to me to be called for. The duty of the Inland Revenue Department in examining the accounts of any concern is confined to such examination as is necessary for the purpose of the assessment of taxation, and I do not propose to apply a different principle in this case.

Mr. Morrison: Is there any precedent for the Government granting what amounts to a monopoly to certain people to make profit out of the public without adequate supervision?

Captain Grookshank: Whether there is a precedent or not, I said there is no ground for the statement in the question.

Mr. T. Williams: Are the Government concerned only with football pools in respect of the Income Tax they derive from the profits?

HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT (STAFF).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his consultations with the Postmaster-General have been successful in finding part-time employment for the waiters and kitchen-staff now engaged on three days a week in the Houses of Parliament in order that they may thus be enabled to earn a living wage?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Captain Waterhouse): I have been asked to reply. I regret that at present there is no opportunity of offering part-time employment in the Post Office to these men during the intermittent periods when they would be available. A note has, however, been made of their names in case any opportunity should occur in the future.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that owing to short time due to the reduced presence of Members,
many of these men are not taking home at the end of the week sufficient to keep their wives and families; and will he consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and other persons responsible in order to make some arrangement whereby a decent living wage can be paid to them?

Captain Waterhouse: My responsibility is for postal employment, but I will consult with my right hon. Friend.

Sir T. Moore: Are not these people paid a full week's wage irrespective of the sittings of the House?

Hon. Members: No.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make with reference to tomorrow's business?

Sir J. Simon: In addition to the business announced for consideration tomorrow, it is hoped that there will be time for the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill [Lords].

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Mr. Bevan: I wish to raise a point of Order concerning the replies which the Secretary of State for War gave to certain questions in the House last week and to-day, and to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the form of the replies was in order. Last week and today, in reply to questions, the right hon. Gentleman read out the reports of the commanding officers of certain camps, and I want to ask whether it is in order for him to do that? Further, as questions of fact in those reports involve also questions of opinion, I should like to know whether it would be in order for hon. Members to attack the officers in question and whether it is, in your opinion, Mr. Speaker, desirable that commanding officers should be brought, on the one hand, into collision with their men and, on the other hand, into collision with the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: No point of order appears to me to call for an answer.

Mr. Bevan: Would it be in order for hon. Members in any part of the House to attack an officer who gave reports? If it is in order, is it proper that the House should be brought into personal collision with a member of the Civil Service? If the name of a civil servant is mentioned in this House or he is implicated, are we to understand that a report received from the right hon. Gentleman is upon his authority or upon the authority of the civil servant whose name he has given to the House, and are we, therefore, entitled to attack the right hon. Gentleman or the civil servant?

Mr. Speaker: The only person whom an hon. Member can attack is the Minister responsible.

Mr. Bevan: Ought the Minister not, therefore, in order to protect a civil servant or commanding officer, read out to the House all the information he receives and not indicate the name of the


commanding officer? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to provide the House with the reports of the commanding officer only when they are in favour of his own views?

Mr. Woodburn: If the Minister quotes from a document from a commanding officer does not that document become a State document under the Standing Order, which requires that it be laid before the House?

Mr. H. Morrison: On the point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? It is customary in this House that if a Minister makes a statement he is responsible for the Department, and we attack the Minister if we wish. If the Minister brings in, in defence of his own policy or Department, and quotes a report by an Army officer, a report which incidentally criticises Members of this House, should we be in order if, instead of attacking the Minister, we attacked the military officer who had criticised the House of Commons and whom the Minister had produced as his witness in the case? It is important we should know whether we should be in order in criticising the military officer.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister, obviously, would be the person to defend the integrity of the officer. Any criticism should be levelled against the Minister.

Mr. Morrison: The matter is important on two grounds—on the ground of Members right to deal with a statement

1935–36.
1936–37.
1937–38.
1938–39.



£
£
£
£


Beet Sugar
2,285,570
2,980,978
1,217,904
1,753,270


Cattle Industry Payments to Producers.
3,884,049
3,982,146
3,943,210
4,301,230


Wheat Act 1932. Deficiency payments to registered growers (a).
5,636,642
1,340,367
1,933,575
9,290,935


Milk
1,854,196
1,044,477
759,987
652,829


Oats and Barley
—
—
—
164,626

(a)There was no Government grant or subsidy in respect of wheat in the years mentioned. The payments shown above were made out of the Wheat Fund. The periods covered are the cereal years ended 31st July, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938.

It is not possible to express in terms of money the benefit which agriculture has derived from derating during these years. The amount included in the block grant in respect of the year 1928–29 on the basis of benefit to agriculture in that year totalled approximately £10,800,000.

which is made by the Minister but which comes from the mouth or the pen of a military officer; and it is also important in relation to the rights of the House of Commons to be protected against the criticism of military officers. I put it to you with very great respect that if the Minister quotes a military officer and stands on the report of the military officer for his own defence, the House or any Member of it is entitled to answer the military officer as well as the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: A Member, no doubt, is entitled to reply to the Minister, but criticism should be levelled against the Minister and not against the military officer.

Orders of the Day — CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

4.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The general purpose of this Bill is to enable qualifications to be made of the constitution and electoral procedure of various bodies. It deals with three classes of bodies, those incorporated under Royal Charter, statutory bodies, and universities and colleges. Clause 1 deals with bodies incorporated under Royal Charter. Put briefly, it provides that the Lord President may by Order in Council modify the provision of the Charter as to the constitution or the discharge of the functions of the body, if satisfied that such modifications are necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing economy or efficiency in the carrying on of the work of the Corporation under war conditions. But for the special machinery provided in this Bill, such modifications can only be made by the submission of a supplementary charter, which is a somewhat lengthy and somewhat costly process. One or two examples will show the type of case which has arisen. The Royal Institute of British Architects desire to suspend the election of their officers; they wish their officers to be enabled to go on and to co-opt other members to fill vacancies. The Chartered Institute of Secretaries wish to be allowed not to have to publish a year-book, and that seems a reasonable thing to allow them not to do during the period of the war. I do not think there will be any controversy about the Bill. A number of chartered bodies have qualifications of this kind, and it is desirable that there should be expeditious machinery for dealing with them.
Clause 2 deals with statutory bodies and corporations. There is a long list and I will give one or two examples— drainage boards, port and harbour authorities, the General Medical Council, and various other bodies with miscellaneous activities. The Clause falls into two parts. Under Sub-section (1, a) His

Majesty may by Order in Council make, with respect to such a body, a provision for extending the term of office of members or officers, or postponing the date of election of new members, and so on. That is a somewhat similar provision to the provision which this House enacted for local authorities. It has been suggested that this part of Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 2 should be put in motion only on the application of the body concerned, that is the provision with regard to chartered bodies, and we feel that it is a reasonable suggestion. Subject to the approval of the House in Committee, therefore, we propose to submit an Amendment to Subsection (1, a) to provide that the machinery shall not start operating except on the application of the body concerned.
Subsection (1, b) deals with a different matter. It provides that His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make provision for reducing the number of persons required to constitute a corporation or body; but the powers under Sub-section (1, b) are limited to the bodies set out in the Schedule. There is power under Sub-section (3) to add bodies to the Schedule by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. It was felt that, in connection with the provision under Subsection (1, a), the House might want to have the matter brought to its attention and made the subject of an affirmative resolution before the procedure of the Clause was set in motion. The two cases mentioned in the Schedule are those of the Electricity Commissioners and the British Overseas Airways Corporation. The position with regard to the Electricity Commissioners is this: Under the Electricity Supply Act of 1919 there have to be three whole-time Commissioners. The maximum number of Commissioners is five. There could, therefore, be two part-time Commissioners. In fact at the moment there are three whole-time Commissioners. As the House knows one of those Commissioners has recently been appointed to another position, namely a position in the Ministry of Shipping. What it is desired to do is to reduce the number of whole-time Commissioners, to retain the services of that gentleman as a part-time Commissioner, and those responsible are satisfied that under war conditions two whole-time Commissioners and one part-time Commissioner can adequately perform the work.

Mr. Ede: Has the Attorney-General not understated the position? The person now doing this dual work is chairman of the Electricity Commissioners and Director-General of Shipping, and he really holds two most important positions under two separate and unconnected Ministries.

The Attorney-General: I can accept that statement. As I say, the reason for putting the Electricity Commissioners in the Schedule is that it is realised that that is a position which could not continue. It is desired that while this gentleman, of course, takes his full appointment in the Ministry of Shipping, he should be available as a part-time member of the Electricity Commission so that the Electricity Commissioners may have the benefit of his services and experience on many important matters, should they be required, and those responsible for the Electricity Commission are satisfied that with the two remaining Commissioners and power to ask for the services of the gentleman in question, the work of the Commission can be carried on efficiently in war circumstances. The position of British Overseas Airways Corporation is that under the British Overseas Airways Act of 1939 the Corporation was to consist of a Chairman, a Deputy-Chairman, and not less than nine and not more than 15 members. Since that Act was passed we have changed from peace to war. The aircraft of the two Corporations which formed the British Overseas Airways Corporation have been taken over by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State for Air feels that this large Corporation is quite inappropriate to conditions as they will apply in war time, and therefore it is desirable to have power to reduce the number of that Corporation, which, of course, was settled with a view to expansion of the enterprise which it was hoped might take place under peace conditions but which are wholly inapplicable to war circumstances.
Clause 5 is an exclusion Clause which excludes certain bodies which would otherwise be within the words of Clause 2. The powers do not apply to local authorities or to the B.B.C., or to universities or university colleges. The reason for the last exclusion is that those bodies are specifically dealt with in Clause 3. When the Bill was before the House which dealt with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, I was asked whether similar

enabling legislation would be passed to deal with other universities and university colleges. I said it was intended to introduce such legislation, and this is the legislation in question. Shortly put, it gives them power to pass emergency Statutes which will be required to deal with such matters as the postponement of elections to offices, the suspension of offices becoming vacant, the suspension of conditions relating to candidature and the tenure of offices, scholarships, and so on. This form has been considered with the universities, university colleges and colleges affected by it and is, I understand, acceptable to them. Clause 4 gives power of retrospection. The reason for that is that certain bodies were, I understand, under the impression that they were covered by the Local Authorities Act and, therefore, did not hold their elections, and there may be one or two other cases in which, for instance, chartered bodies faced with some other difficulty may not have taken some step which under the strict terms of their charter they ought to have taken. I hope the House will agree that this is not an unreasonable case to give retrospective latitude.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: Some of the things proposed to be done under the Bill are, no doubt, necessary, or, at any rate, will be found to be highly convenient. My hon. Friends do not propose to offer opposition to the Bill, although there are one or two matters on which we are inclined, as at present advised, to contemplate putting down some Amendments in Committee. First, as to Clause 1, which deals with chartered bodies, I should like to draw attention to the very wide terms of the Clause which gives power to the Lord President of the Council on application being made to modify the
provisions of any charter, by-laws, regulations or other instruments as to the constitution of the corporation or of any body of persons formed for the purpose of discharging any of its functions, or as to the discharge of the functions of any such corporation or body.
The powers could hardly have been wider drawn than that. I raise the query whether it would not be a proper safeguard for any Orders-in-Council under this Clause to be laid before Parliament, subject to annulment by Prayer. I do not imagine that in the great majority of


cases this would be more than a mere formality, but, in view of the great width of the powers proposed to be taken, I should have thought that it was not unreasonable, in order to prevent something slipping through which really was not reasonable and to which the Lord President of the Council had, perhaps, assented without sufficient consideration, to ask that these Orders should be laid on the Table of the House. My hon. Friends feel inclined, unless the Attorney-General can give cogent reasons why not, to move an Amendment to that effect.
With regard to Clause 2, I was glad to hear the Attorney-General say he was prepared to put down an Amendment which would assimilate the provisions of Sub-section (I, a) to the provisions of Clause 1 so far as the need for an application to be made by the body desiring the Order-in-Council to be issued is concerned. Otherwise it would be possible, as the Clause stands, for the Lord President to issue an Order which, perhaps, it had been urged to issue by some other body but which was not really desired by those primarily concerned. An Amendment such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would, therefore, be welcomed. None the less, I am not quite persuaded that Sub-section (I, a) is necessary at all. The Attorney-General said it was analogous to the arrangements already made in the case of the postponement of elections for local authorities, but that is really quite a different matter. Elections of members of local bodies involve the holding, very often, of public meetings, the proceeding of numbers of persons to the poll on a particular day, and the congregation of people in one place, and that is not at all analogous to the provision whereby a person is appointed by a local authority, or a committee of a local authority, to serve on such a body as, for example, the Lee Conservancy Board. The analogy is not complete, and it does not seem to me that the argument in favour of extending the term of office of members of local authorities applies to the kind of elections which, in fact, are covered by Sub-section (I, a). Moreover, although it makes a welcome advance that an Amendment should be moved requiring the body concerned to make application for an Order, that, perhaps, is not enough.
The London County Council, for example, makes appointments to the Lea Conservancy Board, which may or may not be a somewhat somnolent body and which may desire nothing better than to be left undisturbed during the period of the war, however long, and they may well be moved, by this desire, to make an application to have themselves continued without further disturbance by outside nominated bodies. None the less, it may not be, on balance, desirable to have, may be, an aging body of men, some of whom should be replaced. Would it not be desirable to insert a requirement not only that the body directly concerned should make application but also that the nominating body should be consulted before such application is entertained? Would it not be proper that the London County Council should be consulted before the Lea Conservancy Board was permitted to stabilise its membership, including nominees of the London County Council? Perhaps the Attorney-General will embody some such idea in further Amendments.
Coming to Sub-section (1, b) of Clause 2, I should like to say a word about the inclusion in the Schedule of the Electricity Commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) speaks with more authority than I do, and he and others are a little disturbed at the proposal whereby the same gentleman should be Director-General of the Ministry of Shipping and also should remain Acting-Chairman of the Electricity Commissioners. We judge that both these posts are important and they should both be filled on a full-time basis by a man who is able to devote all his energies to the work. I cannot imagine that the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Shipping would be thought otherwise than a most important post which should absorb the whole energy of whoever holds it. Nor can I accept the view that in war time the post of Chairman of the Electricity Commissioners is so unimportant that it can be filled on a part-time basis by a gentleman who is primarily engaged elsewhere. I am advised that there are many important duties which the Electricity Commissioners may have to undertake in time of war, and by reason of a state of war. I am advised that movements of population, the possible setting up of new munitions factories in areas not hitherto highly


industrialised, and many other such factors, may make it necessary to instal new electric plants, and new schemes of electrification may have to be drawn up by the Commissioners to meet new conditions in the distribution of population and of industry. I cannot understand how it comes about that those responsible for the Electricity Commissioners are satisfied. I do not know whom the right hon. Gentleman means when he says that those responsible for the Electricity Commissioners are satisfied.

The Attorney-General: The Electricity Commissioners under the Statute are responsible to the Minister of Transport, who is responsible to this House. What I meant was that I understand that the Minister of Transport, and, indeed, any others concerned, were satisfied.

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps we had better have the Minister of Transport here at a later stage. It is not quite satisfactory to get it at secondhand from the Attorney-General. Perhaps, also, the Minister of Shipping would have a view as to whether his Director-General should devote his spare time to consider matters relating to electrical development. My hon. Friends are not satisfied, and we shall take occasion to raise the matter in Committee, when I hope the Ministers who have assented to this scheme will attend, because this is not purely a legal matter. It is a matter of practical efficiency in looking after the shipping of the country, on the one hand, and electrical supply and distribution on the other. We do not consider that these two important tasks can be effectively done by one man, however able he may be. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I see him sitting at the extremity of the bench. Perhaps he would like to offer an opinion in the course of this discussion as to whether he thinks the Director-General of Shipping could usefully spend a day or so each week performing duties connected with the Electricity Commissioners. He should have been consulted by the Attorney-General, and I am sure he would like to give us his view at a later stage.
Passing to the other item in the Schedule, we warmly welcome the reduction in what we consider to be the over-large number of persons who are to supervise the British Overseas Airways Corporation, even though it be on the pretext of war. We think the number proposed

would be suitable not only in war time but possibly in peace time. We make no objection to that. With regard to Clause 3 we raise no objection, and with regard to Clause 4 the Attorney-General has dealt with a question that puzzled me, namely, as to why it was necessary to put in this retrospective provision dating back the powers to 1st September. I have mentioned one or two points in detail, and, as I have said, my hon. Friends will probably feel inclined to put down Amendments dealing with these matters when we reach the Committee stage, but before this Second Reading Debate closes, perhaps the Attorney-General will find it possible to say something on what I have said.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Reģinald Clarry: I have viewed with some apprehension the effect of the wide powers under this Bill if they were applied to public utility statutory undertakings, and I was glad to hear the Attorney-General give an assurance that an Amendment would be put down by the Government which would provide that the Act would operate in respect of public utility statutory undertakings, and possibly others—I was not clear on that point—only when there was an application from the body concerned.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: The learned Attorney-General has told the House that Clause 3 is the result of the promise made by the Government during the course of proceedings in connection with a recent Measure dealing with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the University of Durham. I am glad the Government have taken the responsibility of giving a measure of relief in war conditions which may be of great advantage to the Universities concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little) has not been able to come here, but I believe he is especially interested in this matter in view of the help which will be given to his University.
Before we pass the Second Reading I would like to ask the learned Attorney-General whether he would explain what is intended by the words in Clause 3 "on behalf of any University"? Does that mean that the application for an Order-in-Council would have to come from the court or the council or senate of the


University, or does it mean that the application would be made simply by the vice-chancellor on his own authority? The learned Attorney-General explained that this Clause had the consent and approval of the Universities and colleges concerned. I think the vice-chancellors' committee have been in consultation with regard to this matter, but I am afraid that the legal bodies of the Universities have no knowledge of it. Their governing bodies have not met since these proposals were made and they have had no opportunity of being consulted. I think it is important that any body in a university or college in which authority is vested, should be the body to make the application for the Order-in-Council. I hope the Attorney-General will be good enough to make the position on this point clear. The Universities and colleges, I feel sure, will welcome the opportunity given by this Clause for having better working conditions which would not be possible if such facilities were not provided.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I wish to say a few words on the proposed Amendment dealing with the nominating body being consulted. The membership is determined by groups of local authorities which means that when a member is elected by a group of local authorities he more or less automatically becomes a member for life. Many of the members are old people, and tend to lose contact with the people who have elected them. If action is taken without any reference to the nominating authorities I think trouble will ensue. In fairness, I would like to mention the instance which was given, where this has not taken place and will not take place. An example was given of the Lea Conservancy Board, in connection with which, we were told, it would not be allowed without the nominating authorities being consulted. I am not a member of the Lea Conservancy Board, but I believe within the last seven days a communication was sent to all the local authorities in that area asking for their comments as to what their attitude would be with regard to the matters which we are discussing this afternoon. At the same time, there may be other authorities who might not take the attitude which was taken by the Lea Conservancy Board, and

they might be inclined to make these decisions without consulting the nominating authorities.

4.38 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he would give careful consideration to the points which have been made with regard to including the Electricity Commissioners within the scope of this Bill. Apart from the reasons given by the speakers for the Opposition, there are very strong arguments against the proposal as it stands. There is the question whether the post of chairman of the Commissioners is a job requiring the services of a full-time man and also the question who is to be responsible for the administration of the Electricity Commissioners in this period of what I may call semi-suspended chairmanship. Is it to be an occasional Commissioner, or is it to be a chairman who may say, "I could not give any attention to that matter because I was very busy with shipping"? I hope the Attorney-General will weigh this matter, because those who are acquainted with the Electricity (Supply) Act know that the Electricity Commissioners are appointed on a wise principle. They are appointed to represent the three major interests concerned—engineering, administration and the commercial side. If you take out one of those three you will seriously disturb the wise balance which was laid down for the administration of this great corporation. For those reasons I ask the Attorney-General to give that matter his earnest consideration and not to press us to oppose him on a point where we would rather not.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I wish to say one word in support of the plea made by the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) with regard to Clause 3, as to the body by whom the application is to be made. I would point out that the vice-chancellors' committee to which he referred is an informal, and not an official body.

4.41 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I will deal briefly with the points which have been made. I fully appreciate the point which was made by the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the Orders under Clause 1 being laid before Parliament. I will consider this and consult with my Noble


Friend the Lord President. His second point dealt with consultation under Clause 2 (1, a). Undoubtedly consultation will take place; there is a vast number of miscellaneous bodies and it may be that in some cases there would be a difficulty in getting the electors, but that, obviously, would not apply where there are nominations by local authorities. With regard to the Electricity Commissioners, the points to which he referred are not points with which I can deal, certainly not this afternoon, beyond pointing out that under the original Act Parliament contemplated the possibility of the appointment of part-time commissioners. The original Act provides that there shall be three whole-time commissioners and there could be two part-time commissioners; Parliament, in that Act, contemplated the possibilities of part-time commissioners, though they have not, in fact, been appointed in the past.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think it is essential to point out that the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, lays down that there shall be three whole-time commissioners. For some time past the Commission have been working with that number and no more— no part-time or whole-time people to make up the maximum required. It is now proposed to reduce them to two whole-time commissioners neither of whom will be chairman of the commissioners, as I understand the suggestion. The chairman will, in fact, be a part-time commissioner with the greater part of his time given to this enormously important position of Director-General of Shipping. The right hon. Gentleman should bring to the notice of the Minister of Transport the difficulties that are inevitably bound to arise if you have only two existing commissioners actually functioning. It is desirable that there shall be a commissioner with the wide and general experience in public administration which so eminently qualifies Sir Cyril Herbert. The commissioners should be reinforced by some other person who is capable of carrying on that work. Undoubtedly an Amendment will have to be put down to raise this issue, and the right hon. Gentleman must realise that we attach the utmost importance to this point.

Mr. Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind answering the point which I made?

The Attorney-General: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for omitting to deal with his point. "On behalf of" is, I should have thought, a conveniently wide term. The application must be approved by the University or college, but the words may avoid technical difficulties as to form. I will, however, consider the suggestions which were made by the hon. Gentleman.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Duģdale.]

PRICES OF GOODS BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments' be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power of Board of Trade to specify basic price, permitted increase, or permitted price.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 18, leave out "a", and insert "the".

4.46 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Bill was originally drafted on the assumption that a referee would be appointed for each appeal from an Order. That. has been revised; and it has been decided that there should be a permanent referee, appointed for a specified period, and that the person appointed should undertake the hearing of all the appeals. The substitution of "the" for "a" is the first of a series of Amendments, the rest of which are consequential and give effect to that change.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: That means, I suppose, that the person appointed will be paid? If so, I take it that the Board of Trade intend that this Act shall be a very effective one, and that a sufficient number of cases will be brought forward to warrant the appointment of such a


referee. I should like to know what salary it is intended that this gentleman shall be paid, and whether he must be a member of the legal profession. I see that there is an Amendment later on which provides that certain gentlemen connected with the administration of this Act must be members of the legal profession. I should very much like to know what salary it is intended shall be paid.

The Solicitor-General: Looking forward a little I think that a Lords Amendment which has been made to the Second Schedule will show that the person appointed shall be a member of the legal profession, and shall be appointed for a specified period, and so on. I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point as to the salary, as that is not yet fixed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 7, line 40, agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Enforcement by price-regulation committees.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 42, at the end, insert:
or having themselves investigated the alleged contravention.

4.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really drafting. As the Bill was originally drafted, the Central price-regulation committees had not power to investigate alleged contraventions of the Act. That power was conferred on the Committee stage, and this Amendment, accordingly, becomes necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Right of buyer to avoid prohibited transaction or to recover excess price.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 1, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert:

"(1) Where a prosecution has been instituted in respect of a sale of, or an agreement or offer to sell, any price-regulated goods in the course of any business at a particular price, and the person charged has been found guilty, then—

(a) if the prosecution was in respect of a sale or agreement, the buyer under that sale or agreement, and
(b) whether the prosecution was in respect of a sale or agreement or of an offer, the buyer under any sale of similar goods, or under any agreement to sell simi-

lar goods, effected at the same or a higher price in the course of that business in contravention of Section one of this Act before the date of the finding."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House may remember that this Clause has suffered various sea-changes in the course of its passage. On the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was anxious to give all persons, in certain circumstances, the power of recovering our charges in the Police Court where there had been transactions which infringed the Act. His Amendment, for reasons which I then explained, was not very workable, but we promised to look into the matter, and to try to deal with it on the Committee stage. We then produced an Amendment, the disadvantage of which was as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) that it laid open many people to civil proceedings in a way which was not contemplated when the Bill was introduced. A desire was expressed on all sides of the House that civil proceedings should be linked up with cases in which there had been a successful prosecution. I gave an undertaking that that would be looked into, and, if possible, given effect to in another place. This Amendment does give effect to that undertaking. The House will see that the matter is now tied up with the fact of criminal proceedings having been taken. Where criminal proceedings have been taken, not only the person who was a party to the transaction in respect of which those proceedings were brought but any other people who are interested in similar transactions, will be able to bring proceedings for the remedies that the Clause gives.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Kinģsley Griffith: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for fulfilling, as I think completely, the undertaking which he gave on the Report stage. I think that the procedure now provided by the Lords Amendment, although it looks rather complicated, has several merits. It fulfils the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), that is to say, it gives a right of restitution in addition to the penal Clauses of the Bill; it fulfils, I think, the object of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-


General, in not wishing to lay the burden on the magistrates; and it fulfils my object, which is that any proceedings under the Act shall be undertaken only where there has been an investigation with regard to the seller and the line of goods concerned, by the specially skilled investigators provided for under the Act. Once the door has been opened for restitution, that door should be open not only to the person who made the complaint, but to every similarly aggrieved person.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) will be back shortly, and I do not know whether he will then wish to say a few words. It was not his intention, I believe, to make possible under this Bill anything in the way of malicious and frivolous prosecutions. That is obvious. What has startled me is that here we have a Minister of the Crown accepting the legal advice of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrouģh (Mr. K. Griffith). I should have thought that it would have been the other way about. But the House of Commons is a very strange place, and nothing surprises us. I think I may say, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham, that this meets his case, except that we do not understand all the complications of the law; and, certainly, we do not understand the minds of the lawyers when they interpret the law.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 25, at the end, insert:
(5) The rights conferred by this section shall not be exercisable by a person who is himself liable to punishment by reason of his having aided, abetted, counselled or procured, the contravention in question.

4.56 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is to withdraw any right to take proceedings to recover any losses by persons who are themselves parties to the contravention. The Board of Trade has at the present moment knowledge of cases in which persons are offering totally exorbitant prices in order to get command of goods. In future, if such persons make such offers after price regulation has occurred,

they will not be able to avail themselves —and they ought not to be able to— of the remedies provided in this Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 10, line 38, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Saving for rights of third parties.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 3, leave out from "person" to the end of the Clause and insert:
other than a person who is guilty of a contravention of this Act in respect of the transaction, or who is liable to punishment by reason of his having aided, abetted, counselled or procured, such a contravention.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As Clause 15 stands, it suggests that anyone who participates in a transaction at a price exceeding the permitted price commits an offence, merely by doing so with the knowledge that the price is too high. On the Committee stage this was another matter that we were invited to look into. This Amendment is the result. Suppose that there has been an active interference on the part of one of the parties which results in the other person infringing the law, that is a case of aiding and abetting, and should be dealt with; but we think it would not be right that, in some case where the buyer is forced to pay an overcharge in order to get the goods, he should be subject to penalties for having entered into what was an unauthorised transaction. That view, I think I am right in saying, was expressed at one stage of the Debate by the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. The alternative we now propose leaves the position of the aider and abettor untouched, but prevents the person who has been forced into the transaction from incurring penalties.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Offences by corporations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 10, leave out from "that" to the end of the Clause, and insert:
contravention, unless he proves that the contravention was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the contravention as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions as a director or officer of that body and to all the circumstances.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was inserted in another place in order to give effect to a promise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that he would look into an Amendment that the hon. Gentleman had on the Paper, to substitute "and" for "or" in Clause 18. What the hon. Member for Peckham was trying to do was to make it necessary for the director of a company who wished to escape liability to show that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent a contravention. My right hon. and learned Friend resisted that Amendment on the ground that there would be cases due to causes such as illness or the fact that the director was not employed in the department concerned, and that it would not then be possible for him, although he was quite guiltless, to satisfy both tests. But we have considered very carefully what the hon. Member said in answer to that. Among his points was the argument that it rather encouraged a company director to evade his liability by taking care not to be aware of the actual items that were charged—I am rather summarising the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. We thought that that was a good point, and we have tried to meet it by the Amendment, which will now provide that, in order that a director may escape responsibility, he has to prove not only that the offence was committed without his knowledge or connivance, but also that he exercised the care which was consistent with the nature of his duties. That relieves the man who was not in charge of the department concerned, but it imposes upon him the measure of responsibility which I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has fairly summarised the case which I made on the Committee stage for the Amendment I put forward. I think the Amendment meets in a perfectly satisfactory way the case I put up.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I am clumsy in putting my case. When the Bill was before the House on a

previous occasion, he will remember that I raised the point about the salesman. We are dealing here with a body corporate, and we are saying in effect that it will be a defence for the directorate to prove that they have exercised due diligence and care against the contravention of the provisions of the Act by a servant, I have obtained the impression that when an offence: is committed by a business firm it is customary under some Acts of Parliament to prosecute the firm for an offence by one of its salesmen leaving the firm to deal with the assistant who broke the law in its name. I have been trying, as the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary know, to see to it that there should not be a prosecution at all of the assistant under the Bill when it becomes an Act, if he commits in offence in the name and on behalf of his employer. I am told by seme legal gentlemen that the law in this country is gradually being changed and that recent legislation passing though the House has had a tendency to put the responsibility upon the employe instead of upon the firm, and I should like to be assured from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether we are doing anything at all in this Clause which will do away with the rights of the assistant who actually commits the offence in favour of his employer, and, in fact, sometimes for the personal gain of his employer. I have some knowledge of how these corporate bodies work, and I am rather afraid that what I have suggested might happen to the assistant unless we are careful in drafting this Measure.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: Surely the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr, Rhys Davies) did not suggest that, if an assistant committed an offence under the Act which might incidentally profit his employer, but which was done through, perhaps, the intemperate zeal for the good of the business but which was made completely without his employer's knowledge, and indeed against the instructions he received from his employer, the employer must then be made responsible for an offence which he never contemplated but which, indeed, he desired to avoid.

5.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Once again I have no shame in availing myself of the


argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), but as far as the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is concerned, my answer is that the Amendment with which we are now dealing has nothing to do with the position of the assistant of whom he is speaking. It neither strengthens his position nor weakens it. The sole effect of the Amendment is to deal with the case of a director or officer of a company. This very stringent Section makes the director or officer of the company—not a firm in the legal sense of the word, but a body corporate —liable for offences that are committed, but it gives him an escape provided, and provided only, that he establishes that he knew nothing about the offence and that it was not his duty to know anything about the commission of the offence. Beyond that, it does nothing. It imposes no new responsibility that does not already exist in the Bill, and the servants of the company are not touched by the Amendment. The servants would in any case only be guilty if a deliberate intention contrary to the wishes of their master had been established, and this Amendment does nothing to infringe that.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 12, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Powers of Board of Trade for purposes of this Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 35. at the end, insert:
(4) An Order made by the Board of Trade in exercise of the power conferred on them by the First Schedule to this Act to specify matters to which regard is to be had in fixing the permitted increase may provide that this Act shall have effect in relation to transactions effected before the coming into operation of the Order, in like manner as if that matter had been specified in the said Schedule as originally enacted.

5.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment should be taken in conjunction with an Amendment in page 15, line 24, to delete certain words. The object of the Amendment is to give the

Board of Trade power to make retrospective the effect of any Orders made under the First Schedule to add to that Schedule additional matters which are to be regarded in arriving at the permitted price. The words omitted are the last words in the First Schedule, and the Amendment must be taken in conjunction with this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 39, after "court" insert
or on an appeal under this Act to the referee.

5.9 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment to prevent the power of the Board of Trade to make regulations from overlapping the power possessed by my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to make rules governing proceedings on appeal to the referee. That is, in fact, an appeal to an order made by the Board of Trade, and there is power on the part of the Lord Chancellor to make these regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 21—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 31, leave out "matter," and insert "alleged contravention."

5.10 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. J. S. Reid): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the following two Amendments are Amendments to the Clause, "Application to Scotland," and they are all consequential on Amendments to which the House has already agreed in respect of Clause 8.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 15, line 24, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to appeals against orders specifying prices.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 29, leave out paragraph I and insert:
1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a person, who shall be a member of the legal profession, as referee to hear and determine all appeals against orders made under Section


five or six of this Act, or against orders varying such orders.
(2) The person so appointed shall be appointed for a specified period, subject to such conditions with respect to the vacation of his office as may be imposed before the time of his appointment, and on ceasing to hold his office shall be eligible for reappointment thereto.
(3) In the case of illness, incapacity or absence, of the referee, the Lord Chancellor may appoint some other person to act as deputy for the referee, and a person so appointed shall when so acting have all the functions of the referee.

5.10 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: These are necessary Amendments to which I referred in relation to the first Amendment on the Order Paper and are consequent on the decision to appoint one referee. As permanent referees are to be appointed rather than ad hoc referees for each case, this Amendment is necessary to cover the terms of their appointment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 1, leave out "a" and insert "the."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is consequential.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gritnston.]

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: We are raising this Debate for two main reasons. The first is to afford the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Shipping an opportunity of acquainting the House with the work of his Department, and also to state to the House some positive suggestions for the administration of the merchant navy during the war. The right hon. Gentleman has occupied his present position for several weeks, and he will not complain if we now venture to ask him several questions on his activities during that period. The machinery associated with

the Ministry of Shipping was in existence before the Ministry itself was created. There was some doubt in the mind of the Government as to whether a Ministry of Shipping was necessary because, as was pointed out, the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade was adequate for the purpose. Anyhow, the machinery was there, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has availed himself of its use. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman has now fortified himself with a Parliamentary Secretary. There is something to be said for this Government. It is responsive to criticism and to advice, and I would remind hon. Members that three weeks ago, in the course of the Debate on economic co-ordination, I ventured the suggestion that the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) ought to be caught up in the administrative tasks of the Ministry of Shipping. It is true that the Government have delayed for three weeks, but it is never too late to mend, and they have now the well-equipped and well-informed mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to fortify the activities of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
I am in some difficulty whether I ought to congratulate the hon. Member or condole with him. I want to be fair, however, and, therefore, I will venture to congratulate the Government. I am not so sure that I can congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on being associated with that Government. At any rate, I am satisfied that his assistance will be of inestimable value. It is singular, but I do not want to make too much of it, that the man who has a thorough knowledge of shipping matters, and whose experience derives from the last war and the post-war period, should be the Parliamentary Secretary, whereas the man who, so it is alleged, is lacking in experience, should be the Minister himself. However, I do not want to make too much of it, and I leave the matter there.
No hon. Member in any quarter of the House will deny the importance of the merchant navy in time of war. Unless the merchant navy is effective in all its ramifications, we are in danger of defeat. It is the life-blood of all our operations. The transport of troops and equipment, our export trade, our imports and the like all depend upon the active and effective functioning of the merchant navy. With-


out that merchant navy we should be in a parlous condition. With that view I think there will be general agreement. It is, therefore, desirable at this time that we should direct attention to the actual condition of the merchant navy. I say that advisedly, because as it appears to me there exists in certain circles an unwarranted optimism in that regard. I am sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty does not face hon. Members during this Debate. Some of the statements for which he accepts responsibility err on the side of an exaggerated optimism in respect of the adequacy and the functioning of the merchant navy. For example, he is responsible for a statement, made a week or two ago, that we have something like 18,000,000 of tonnage available for our needs. He cannot have informed himself of the true facts of the situation. We have to subtract from that amount the vessels which now form part of the Navy itself, the auxiliary vessels. There are the vessels which have been converted for the purpose of transporting troops, and some of which have been completely denuded of their refrigerating plant and the other equipment designed for the purpose of trade alone. There are the hospital ships, and there are many others which are now more intimately associated with the operations of the Navy. Therefore, we cannot claim, much as I should like to do so, to have at our disposal at this time 18,000,000 tons of effective shipping.
There is present to my mind, as there must be to the minds of other hon. Members, the important and vital question of replacements. In this respect the Government bear a heavy responsibility. At the behest of the Governor of the Bank of England and other equally important gentlemen in the financial world we rationalised our shipbuilding some years ago and deprived ourselves in wartime of 40 per cent. of shipbuilding capacity. Now, or it may be in the future, we shall realise the gravity of that step. It is a matter which we cannot ignore. Moreover, we have to consider what type of vessel is most effective for our purpose, having regard to the new situation that has developed as a result of our operations since the beginning of hostilities. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a broadcast utterance the other night, seemed, it appeared to me, to be encouraging the enemy to attack our shores.
Whether that impression be false or otherwise, this I can say, that an air attack, or an attack of any other character, on our eastern ports and harbours would be a very serious matter. Those ports and harbours are extremely vulnerable. Let there be no mistake about that. By the dislocation that would be caused by such attacks we should be compelled to divert the bulk of our shipping and the bulk of our trade from the eastern ports to ports on the west coast. That involves questions of internal transport and other domestic considerations of equal importance. In particular, it raises the issue of the type of vessel which is required in such a situation. The larger type of vessel is not only vulnerable but exceedingly difficult to mobilise rapidly. Loading and discharging difficulties are bound to be encountered in a greater degree than in normal times with vessels of that type. There is the question of convoy to be considered, on which I shall have something to say before I sit down.
Therefore, the Minister of Shipping must devote himself to the question of whether or not we should rapidly mobilise a large fleet of small vessels of the coastal type, vessels which could utilise the harbours of the West Coast of Scotland, which is an area less vulnerable, where there is ample storage capacity, and where the danger of air attack is considerably less than on our eastern coast. That brings me to the question of what the Government are doing for the purpose of replacing obsolete vessels, although in war-time few vessels are obsolete, and in particular vessels which have been destroyed by enemy attack or by operations associated with the war. We discarded the scheme which was introduced in the form of legislation some time ago by the President of the Board of Trade to provide for a greater output of shipping. So far we have not been informed by the Government about an effective substitute. In reply to a question this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman said —he will correct me if I am wrong— that one-fifth of the shipbuilding to-day was on Government order, but what amount of shipbuilding for the merchant navy is being constructed is a matter upon which the Government remain silent. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) ventured an interrogation on that subject.
It may be that in the public interest it is inadvisable to give details, and I am not asking for details, but we want an assurance that replacement is effective and rapid. Not only do we ask for an assurance regarding replacements, but we want an assurance that the needs of the situation in the future, which every hon. Member must envisage, are being dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman may reply by saying that the whole of our shipbuilding capacity is being fully utilised. That may mean little or nothing. It may mean, for example, that the bulk of our shipbuilding is on Government order. I believe that on the Clyde the bulk of shipbuilding is naval construction. It may be that the same thing applies to other shipbuilding centres. That is satisfactory so far as it goes, but it does not meet the point as to whether or not we are effectively and rapidly replacing mercantile tonnage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say about that subject in the course of his speech.
I want to address myself to the question of the convoy system. I do not propose to go into detail, I refrain from doing so in the public interest, but I do say that I am not satisfied with the operation of the convoy system, neither are the shipowners. There are considerable delays, there is considerable waste and overlapping, and considerable danger is involved. It is alleged—I put it no higher than that —that vessels are expected to proceed to a rendezvous that may be very vulnerable and that serious danger might ensue, and in spite of what the First Lord of the Admiralty has said in this House and elsewhere about the efficacy of the convoy system, there is some doubt as to whether all our vessels, or a large part of our vessels, are being effectively convoyed. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to furnish us with intimate details, but certainly we are entitled to a sound assurance and to hear from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman either that all is well or that it is the intention of the Government at an early date to see that the most effective convoy system is established. I ask it, first of all, because of the essential needs of the case, in the interests of shipowners and, in particular, in the interests of the men who go to sea.
Now I address myself to the question of the allocation of tonnage, and I preface my remarks on this head by saying that I fully appreciate, as I am sure most hon. Members do, the difficulties inherent in the present situation. It is not easy to satisfy the wants of every interest. There are the needs of the Service Departments to be considered, and the needs of trade, but this I say, that it would be a fatal mistake on I he part of the Minister and on the part of the Government if they as a principle establish priority for the Service Departments and ignore the plain considerations which present themselves in respect of our commercial needs. Again I have ro desire to enter into details, and I only add this, that the Government must not always place the needs of our export trade and our commercial needs as a whole at the end of the queue. They deserve better consideration than that.
That brings me to certain principles in relation to the allocator of gonnage to important industries, or perhaps I should say to one important industry and one important aspect of our import trade. The first is as regards coal. I speak with some feeling on this subject because my own constituency has been adversely affected in recent weeks. There has been considerable short time and the men are complaining. In that constituency we have some of the largest pits in the country, with a tremendous output of coal, and there has been much short time in recent weeks. That is bad for the men, but it is bad for the country us a whole and it is bad for our export trade. I will not argue the question of the export trade and its importance as a weapon in this war; I have done so on previous occasions, but it is a thoroughly bad thing that these pits should be working short time and that the nation should be deprived of coal for export unless, of course, there are sound reasons for that position. I understand that there are shipping difficulties. Again, I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to turnish details, but, surely, these difficulties are not to be a constant factor. Surey at some time they will be modified if net removed. As far as I can gather, there appears to be no evidence of their immediate removal, and even no evident? of their immediate modification. At any rate, the complaints still pour in, and they are


substantial complaints. There is some difficulty about convoy. It may be that the transport of coal from the North-East Coast to the Scandinavian countries is not regarded as of urgent importance at this time, or that shipments of coal from the North-East Coast to the London gas works is not regarded as of importance. I venture the contrary opinion, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to devote some part of his time to clearing up this mess. It will be a serious matter if it is permitted to continue.
Now I come to the question of the difficulty in shipment of cereals. I have it from a very authoritative source which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not ask me to divulge, that the Cereals Board, which is a Government Department, is experiencing considerable difficulties in obtaining the requisite tonnage for the shipment of cereals. That is a most unsatisfactory position, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something on it. I come to the operations of the Minister as regards the requisitioning of vessels and the question of freights and rates. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the principle upon which he determines the rates to be paid when vessels are requisitioned, and will he inform us as to the basis of the principles which operate as regards the requisitioning of vessels? About the latter I can say that many shipowners are complaining that the wrong type of vessel is being requisitioned. Some vessels are being gutted quite unnecessarily, when there are adequate vessels which could be utilised for the purpose the Government have in mind. I know that there is considerable controversy in the shipping world because rates have risen enormously, particularly on neutral tonnage, and that British shipowners are demanding increased rates. Here I venture to remark that the Government must make up their mind upon the principle concerned. I put it this way. It may seem strange coming from this quarter, but we have to view the situation as it is. Either the Government must give to shipowners a reasonable profit or they must take over the whole of our shipping—one or the other. You cannot expect shipowners to run their ships for very long unless they are making what they regard as a reason-, able profit. It is alleged that they are making no profits at all—

Mr. Kirkwood: Nobody believes that.

Mr. Shinwell: And particularly is that so as regards tramp shipping. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). It is true that many tramp shipping firms are incurring losses at this time, and we have to deal with the facts. It is the case that as a result of the interminable delays and what shipowners regard as vexatious interference, tramp shipowners are incurring losses. If you had straight voyages with no interference it would be a different matter, but when ships are held up for one reason or another and wages have to be paid and all sorts of additional costs incurred, obviously, there is a likelihood of losses being incurred. I am not going to weep tears over the tramp shipowners, they can look after themselves, but we have to deal with the situation which presents itself. Therefore, either these shipowners are to receive a reasonable return on their capital or the Government should make one clean sweep and control the whole of our shipping. I make this qualification. It may not be expedient to exercise complete control as regards certain of our liner routes, but a consideration which presents itself to the mind of those who have informed themselves on these questions, is that of preserving these trades for the after-war period; that is a matter which must always be present to our mind. We cannot afford to lose the goodwill created by shipping lines in the past or to lose many of our trade routes, it would be fatal to the industrial interests of this country.
The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, what is he proposing to do? Does he propose to increase the-rates, as is alleged, and, if so, to what extent? If he increases the rates to anything like the figure earned by neutral shipowners there will be a very serious clamour in this country. A reasonable profit, yes, in the absence of complete requisitioning under national control, but to allow shipowners, as some would desire, to make the kind of profits which were known in the last war is something which this country is not prepared to tolerate. That brings me to the question of neutral tonnage and the profits now being earned. Unprecedented profits are being earned by neutral shipping. I understand that as much as £150 per day per vessel is being earned, and I understand that freight rates on particular com-


modities are being increased. These neutral shipowners will, therefore, do even better than they have hitherto. A point that has to be considered is whether it is wise to allow neutral shipowners to build up during the progress of this war huge reserves which may be utilised against the British Mercantile Marine after the war ends. On the other hand, we have got to tempt the neutral shipowners to carry the commodities we desire. The situation is a difficult one.
There is a point which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will keep under close observation. It is this. I am credibly informed that Scandinavian shipowners are now paying able seamen between £30 and £40 a month, and that Greek shipowners have trebled the wages of their men. The wages of British seamen are round about £10 a month. There is a reason for the high wages that are paid to neutral seamen; they are not disposed to go to sea unless they are tempted by this financial inducement. I do not altogether blame them. I know it has been said that British seamen proceed to sea even after being torpedoed with the utmost alacrity and enthusiasm. The last thing which the seamen of the British Mercantile Marine ask is that they should be described as heroes. If one met a seaman in the East India Dock Road, in Glasgow, in Cardiff, or in any of our ports, and suggested that he was a hero, I think he would reply that a pint of beer would be more acceptable. Certainly he wants to be properly remunerated, and he is not being properly remunerated now. When the seamen of the British Mercantile Marine learn, as they are learning, that seamen employed by neutral shipowners are earning three times the amount which they are, they are a bit troubled in their minds. The question of the higher wages that are being paid by neutral shipowners must come under review. The Government must consider whether they cannot balance the rates for neutral tonnage more delicately than they are now disposed to do. For example, where neutral tonnage is absolutely essential we have to pay whatever is demanded, but where it may not be quite as essential, there is no reason why the first demands of the neutral shipowners should be met. It has been suggested that a number of Greek vessels

are being employed by the British Government and that extraordinarily high rates are being paid for the use of them. I do not know whether this is essential or not, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on the matter.
I return to the question whether we are to permit shipowners to earn reasonable profits or to take over British shipping. There is a precedent in this war for taking over British ships. I understood that the Government have taken over the a whole of the whaling vessels. I understand that the firm of Unilever have been asked to hand over their vessels and that other firms in the same line of business are in a similar situation. I do not know what are the terms; it may be on a time-charter basis, or on some other terms If it is advisable for the Government to do this in one department of the Mercantile Marine, it may be desirable for it to be done on reasonable terms certainly as regards the whole of our tramp shipping. We have to be fair even to shipowners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?" I We are living under a capitalist system: Obviously, if we could do without the whole of the privately-owned British Mercantile Marine in war time, I would gladly suggest that it should be done, but we cannot. We have allowed that system to grow up, and it would take some time before it would be possible to abandon it.
We have to deal with the situation as it is. We have to be fair to the shipowners. Some shipowners may lose the whole of their tonnage as a result of submarine warfare and may be put out -if business, and others, more fortunate, may retain the whole of their tonnage, and at the end of the war may be in a very fortunate position. In discussing the question of taking over vessels, the rates for requisitioning and the like, and the replacement of vessels that are lost, one must do so on a basis of equity, and the question whether or rot we should nationalise shipping at the 2nd of: the war, or even, if there is a kind of nationalisation during the war, whether it should continue, is a matter for political decision at that time. It has to be deat with in the light of circumstances. I have no hesitation in saying, for myself and my hon. Friends, that in the future Labour Government which we expect, we shall certainly nationalise the shipping industry of this country, adapting ourselves to the circumstances; but I do not suggest that


that could be done, at this stage, at the present time. The matter has to be carefully considered, and certainly the public interest must be considered. It is there that the question of high rates for British shipowners comes in.
Another point which I want to raise is the structure of the Ministry of Shipping itself. In replying to questions this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate satisfaction with the Advisory Council. He did not seem to be prepared to yield to pressure even in that regard, but I do not want to discuss that at this stage. We have got something of what we demanded, and there the matter stands. On that Advisory Council there are nine shipowners and nine representatives of the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that is sufficient for our purpose. He is wrong. He has selected a considerable shipping personnel from the shipowners' side to assist him as technical advisers in the work of his Department. I will put the question in a sentence, so as not to occupy too much time—if the right hon. Gentleman is to have shipowners on his right hand, he ought to have on his left hand representatives of the labour concerned with the shipping industry, or he may reverse the geographical position if he cares. I suggest that representatives of the trade unions ought to be taken into the Ministry without being paid for their services. We have the example of the steel industry and the steel control. Representatives of the steel industry on the workers' side are associated with the steel control, and are not remunerated. What we are asking for is a measure of real equality in the administration of this great industry in war time. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly, because I feel strongly on this point, that those connected with the trade union and labour side of an industry are just as well equipped technically and even commercially as those on the employers' side.
More particularly is this desirable because of the acute problems that will engage the right hon. Gentleman's attention if the war lasts. To give him an example, the question of the organisation of the labour supply presents serious problems. I understand that there is considerable difficulty in connection with the employment of alien seamen. The British Mercantile Marine has always employed

numbers of alien seamen. There is considerable difficulty about the employment of Lascar and Chinese seamen. I have read in the newspapers that Lascar seamen refused to sail and were sent to prison. There is no evidence of British seamen refusing to sail and being convicted. Shipowners on the other side of the House, and shipowners outside the House, have in the past availed themselves of cheap Lascar and Chinese labour. We have warned them on this matter, and now, in time of war, in time of national emergency and crisis, we can no longer rely on these seamen. This is a subject on which I happen to have some knowledge because in the last war I had something to do with the organisation of the labour supply for the Mercantile Marine, and I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as the war proceeds, he will encounter serious difficulties in organising the labour supply, and it will not be enough to rely upon the National Maritime Board and the port consultants. More than that is required. I want the right hon. Gentleman to have in his Department people from the trade union side, equipped with all the knowledge and having the necessary influence among the men, of whom to avail himself at any time, just as he does in the case of the shipowners. There are other questions on which the representatives of the seamen's trade unions can speak with very great knowledge.
There is one point which has been brought to the notice of hon. Members on this side, and I have no doubt hon. Members opposite—namely, the conditions of the officers and men since the war began. First of all, I want to speak on the question of compensation for loss of effects. It is a wonderful tribute to British seamen, officers and men alike, that, although they have been torpedoed, they are ready to proceed to sea. Indeed —and this is a reflection on the conditions prevailing in the Mercantile Marine— although there is a provision that where officers or men are torpedoed, they are to receive two months wages for unemployment, the men are compelled to return to sea with sometimes only two days ashore after being torpedoed, or they must forfeit compensation. I was told by the representatives of the seamen's union that in various ports men have returned, after being torpedoed, expecting to have reasonable relief ashore, and have been told that unless they


took ship within a couple of days, there would be no compensation. As to the question of compensation for effects, at the present time, as regards able seamen and other ratings, the rate of compensation for loss of effects is £7 10s. I have been at pains to inquire as to the probable cost of this in the case of an able seaman or a fireman, and two reputable firms at the dockside have given me estimates. One estimated that the ordinary kit of an able seaman would cost rather more than £14, and the other estimated that it would be a little more than £13, and a sailors' home, which often replenishes the kit of men, gave me an estimate of £14. Yet the maximum amount that can be claimed by a torpedoed seaman, who has undergone all the trials and dangers, is £7 10s.
A mess-room steward receives £25, and although a steward may carry more kit than an able seaman, there seems to be no reason for that disparity. I do not wish to reduce the amount which is paid to the mess-room steward, but I want to see an increase in the amount which is paid to the able seaman. There is also a disparity in the case of engineer officers. Engineer officers are being placed on a naval basis, and in the Navy, engineering officers are inferior to navigating officers, whereas in the Mercantile Marine they are on the same level. The Government should have consulted with both officers and men before arriving at these determinations. The same remark applies to the question of pensions. The pension rates, in our judgment, are scandalous and must be revised. In this matter also there was no consultation I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. As he said this afternoon, many things had been done before he was asked to take his present office but he bears the responsibility now, and I look to him to see that these matters are dealt with immediately on a satisfactory basis.
Finally, without being unfriendly, I wish to utter a warning to the right hon. Gentleman. There is a danger in over-optimism just as there is a danger in undue pessimism. We must strike a balance. We must have an effective and efficient Mercantile Marine with a contented personnel—officers and men alike. We must organise our Mercantile Marine, not from the standpoint only of the interests of the shipowners, although their

views in the present situation must not be ignored, but in the interests of the nation as a whole. Last but not least, the Ministry of Shipping must take its rightful place in any scheme of co-ordination— and co-ordination is highly necessary. Unless the Ministry of Shipping is recognised as one of the most important Departments in war time, I warn the Government that we may find ourselves in a very grave situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to those considerations. I have done my best to avoid needless criticism. I have certainly refrained from the unwise discussion of details. We are concerned with the successful prosecution of the war and we want to shorten the war as much as possible. At the same time, we are bound to criticise where criticism appears to be necessary, and we shall continue to criticise, unless the right hon. Gentleman and his very able Parliamentary Secretary appreciate what the true functions of the Department are, and try to adapt themselves to existing circumstances.

6.4 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: We have now been engaged for 10 weeks in the prosecution of the war, and it is right and proper that at this stage at least one day should be given to a discussion on shipping and the problems connected with shipping. There is no industry Irore vital to our success in the war. Indeed, there is none more vital to our existence as a nation. Before the war we had, on many occasions, discussions of the intricate problems of the Mercantile Marine. We had to depart from our traditional policy and resort to subsidies, largely because of the decline in many branches of the industry. Unfortunately, it is true to say that we start this war with our shipping industry in not nearly as strong a position as it occupied in 1914. For over 100 years Great Britain could claim supremacy in the Mercantile Marine. That was due to many causes—to our position, to the natural instinct of our men to take to the seas and to our extensive sea border. In 1914 we faced war confident of our shipping supremacy. Now it is fair to say that, if we deduct tankers, our position in 1939 as regards shipping is not as good as it was in 1914. The last war dealt serious blows at our shipping supremacy. If we are not careful and wise in the organisation of our shipping, if we do not take a long view


of the problem, this war may prove to be the knock-out blow.
I have a memory of many discussions in the years between 1916 and 1918 when the situation at sea had become very serious. There is much in common between what happened in the last two years of the previous war and what has happened in the first two months of this war. We have the same problem of the U-boats. But we have experienced its intensity in the first few weeks of the present war, whereas it did not become a serious factor in the last war until 1917. We have the same problems, emphasised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), of the diversion of shipping from its normal functions to the Government service, the abundance of imports and the inevitable shortage of exports though here, again, the problems which we are facing now in the first weeks of the present war only became serious in the last months of the previous war. The fact that our ships were engaged on Government service meant in the last war a tremendous premium on neutral shipping. It put Japan on its legs and gave a tremendous stimulus to the Scandinavian States.
There is one interesting difference in this respect between the last war and the present war. There is an inclination on the part of our enemy to sink neutrals without much discrimination—something which did not happen in the last war. Japan on this occasion has its own war and is very busy in the Pacific, and therefore is not able to steal the advantage in the same way as it did in the years from 1916 to 1919. Incidentally, I notice that Italy is reaping some advantage from the fact that we are occupied with war. Again, we have the call on our ships to carry troops. In the last war, at any rate for the purposes of the Western Front, the small Channel boats were used in conveying troops, but, as the Secretary of State for War has rightly pointed out, the mechanisation of the Army has made it necessary to call into service large steamers, very often liners, and to divert them to military purposes.
Then there are the convoys. Again, the convoy was not introduced until the middle of the last war. This time the system has operated almost from the inception of war. The policy is un-

doubtedly proving itself to be right, and I think the First Lord of the Admiralty has made out his case for it. But as the hon. Member who opened this Debate has pointed out, the convoy system means serious delays in starting and, for the faster ships, it also means much slower voyages. The weakness of the system is that the speed has to be regulated by the lowest common denominator. That is one of the matters in which the new Ministry can do a most useful service. It can improve the organisation of the convoys so that there will be a proper grouping of ships according to speed. Better regulation of this matter can avoid serious loss to the industry caused by protracted journeys. The finance of a modern ship depends largely on the number of times it is able to turn round, and if a ship is deprived of an extra voyage, it means increased cost which is inevitably passed on to the goods and, therefore, means increased prices. In connection with matters of this kind a live, properly-organised Ministry of Shipping can do much.
The hon. Member for Seaham quite properly referred to the problem of profiteering. I have a vivid memory of the speech made by the late Mr. Bonar Law in June, 1917, on this subject. It caused something of a sensation at the time. He put the responsibility on the Government, and he was quite frank with the House. He gave details of his own private transactions and of the enormous profits which a small investment of capital was able to obtain, and he justified a special tax in order to deal with that problem. Now, of course, we have our own legislation, but I say that the Government must have a properly worked-out policy to stop the kind of thing which went on during the last war, when shipowners taking advantage of the scarcity, sold out and were able to do so with great capital advantage. Anything of that kind should be stamped upon, if necessary by legislation, and should be discouraged in every way in the power of the Ministry. I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham that reasonable profits ought not to be discouraged, provided they are placed to reserve, and if by any ingenuity the Government could devise some policy on those lines, it would be all to the good, because the cost of shipbuilding is rising by leaps and


bounds and replacement costs will be very heavy.
Our experience in the last war was that those firms who got in early and who cleared out, made immense fortunes, while those who got in late and built ships, very often for the Government, were, shortly after the end of the war, financially ruined. It was a common thing to hear of bankruptcies in Cardiff and in many shipping centres, of shipowners who had gone into the industry late, while those who cleared out in the middle of the war had, in many instances, made immense profits. It is common knowledge that this war finds our shipbuilding industry in a much less strong position than it was during 1914. Many shipowners have gone out of action, largely, it has been suggested, for financial reasons. Very careful organisation will be required if we are to get the necessary output to provide for replacements.
I understand there is some talk of a standard ship. In fact, I am told that such ships are already being turned out, and that the Government have obtained very skilled advice upon them. Our experience in this respect in the last war was rather unfortunate. The standard ship did not stand the test of post-war conditions. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard of the concrete ships. There was great talk during the period of the scarcity of iron and steel about the construction of concrete ships and some were actually built, but no one can say that they were a great success. Wise direction and sound organisation are wanted, if our already decreased production capacity is to be made capable, not only of helping us through the war months, but also of ensuring that after the war we shall not have an inferior Mercantile Marine. We still have the finest building yards in the world, on the Clyde, on the Tyne and on Mersey side, and we want to see that those great assets are properly organised and their outfit used on a long-term policy and not merely to provide for our immediate needs.
I want to pay a tribute—I think one ought to—to the men who go down to the sea in ships. The hon. Gentleman made some reference to them, but I want

to emphasise their courage and endurance, even in normal times. It wants character in these days to go to sea; there are so many other tempting industries to go into. It is right to say that the prizes are few, even at the top, the life is hard, the hours are long, and if that is so in normal times, to go to sea in war time really requires heroism. No leave; no lights, a zig-zag course, perils from mines and submarines—they are just as much heroes as the men who go into the front line and have to face the enemy there. It is right and proper that the Government should see that these men have generous treatment, that their conditions are of the best, and that they should not be under a sense of grievance because of official red tape, or the amount of compensation to which they are entitled, or any small points that are instating, to make them feel that their services are less recognised than those of the officially recognised Fighting Services. These men are just as essential and just as vital to the winning of the war and to the bringing of it to a successful conclusion as are the men of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Therefore, if the Ministerwants to make a success of his Department, he must leave no stone unturned to earn their good will and, above all, their confidence and support.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: It would ill become me to indulge in any congratulations, were it not that I should like to convey to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of those in Liverpool who are all, whatever be their individual avocations, connected by feeling and interest with the trade of the sea, their heart-felt desire to assist in any way they can the operations and the conduct of the Ministry which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have under their charge. I find to-day, having listened, I think, to every speech that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has made on shipping during the past four years, that I have been surprised by the great measure of agreement in which I found myself this afternoon. Two postulates for the conduct of shipping at the present time are beyond any cavil or peradventure at all. The first is the absolute necessity of the Mercantile Marine for the security of the country and the conduct of the war, and the second is, at the present moment


and in the present conditions, the desirability of maintaining the Government's policy that the industry should be run by those normally responsible for it under the guidance of the Ministry of Shipping. Therefore, starting from that common ground, I ask hon. Members to consider what are the matters in shipping to-day that would receive common consent. I think it would be agreed that the control of freights, which exists to-day, must cover the actual cost of the voyage, but, apart from that, we have to consider the question of replacements, as the conditions of the industry exist, and in accordance with the fact, which is inevitable, that replacements, as the war goes on, have to be made at a higher price, and probably a considerably higher price, when it comes to be made. We have further to consider the fourth point, that if the industry is to continue and is to attract the capital in the future which is necessary for its continuance, there must be a reasonable rate of interest on the money that is invested in the industry to-day.
These conditions, as I say, would scarcely be questioned, but to meet these conditions before the beginning of the war this House had approved of the suggestion that there should be a subsidy of £2,750,000 for tramp shipping. That is in abeyance. Therefore, that amount, which was necessary on the basis of a 5 per cent. depreciation and a margin of 3 percent., has to be recovered, if we are to achieve the efficiency which we desired by that legislation, either from the freight rates as they are to-day or from the price of requisitioning; that is, we have not only to meet these four almost unquestionable necessities, but we have to meet also the position that we recognised when we gave that legislation its Second Reading shortly before the war. We have also to remember that not only was a subsidy deemed a necessity, but it was deemed a necessity under certain conditions, namely, reorganisation and a general improvement in the conditions of the industry. I say with the greatest respect that it will not be sufficient if the Ministry simply carries on to-day, if it produces the money necessary for this purpose. The Ministry to-day has to give that control, guidance, and lead along the path of improvement which were being demanded as a condition of the

subsidy of which we approved earlier in this year. Further, we have to face the fact that expansion was deemed a necessity, even before the conditions of war were inevitable. Nowadays it is doubly a necessity, and I submit that it is not sufficient that we should have that expansion through Government building; it is necessary that the industry itself should be encouraged in every way to make an expansion to-day. Again we come back to this: Where is the money to come from? It can only come, as the subsidy is out of the way, either, as the hon. Member for Seaham pointed out, from some increase in freight rates or from an increase in the prices given for requisitioning.
I do not want to go into details, but I think this House should face the position that obtains with regard to neutral shipping at the present time. I take one example, which is not an unfavourable or an unfair one. It is that of a country where they have controlled freights, namely, Norway. There you will find that to-day, with regard to the River Plate, the Norwegian rates are twice the rates that the Government are paying, of 32s. 6d.; with regard to the St. Lawrence rates, they are very nearly twice, and with regard to the Pacific rates they are 50 per cent. more. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Seaham —I do not think he was in his place when I said before that I have seldom found myself so much in agreement with him, and, therefore, I am all the more glad to announce it to-day—that we do not want to take these Norwegian figures as being the right figures for us. We have to consider them in the light of the position in which the Norwegian industry finds itself and is able to exploit at the present time, but we have to bear in mind that if we scale down too much, we are not merely requiring ourselves to face, but we are definitely inviting that we shall face, the same position again, namely, increased resources, increased reserves of tonnage, increased reserves of finance, and generally increased competition in every way from the neutral countries when the war comes to an end. One really has to consider, if Ministers in this country to-day are prepared to pay something like 60 per cent. over our own rates to neutral vessels, what the outcome will be when the position of crisis passes.
But I should like to consider it from another point of view, which I do not think has been put before the House so far, and that is the actual effect, to take one very simple example, of the grain freights, the increases which are suggested by the industry to-day, and the effects on the 4-lb. loaf, with its present price of about 8id. With regard to the freight to the Argentine route, a 6,000-miles route, the amount which could be referable to the transport by sea is I.18d., an increase of 43d. on the rates that are suggested at present; with regard to Canada, where you have a shorter route of 3,100 miles, the rate is .69d., an increase of .22d.; and with regard to Australia, a 12,000 miles run, the amount is 1.56d., the increase being .56d. When one considers the importance and value of the industry, which we all admit, I venture to submit that these requests which are being put forward to-day are not exorbitant and should receive very serious consideration. When we come to try and face the dilemma, which has been very properly put forward by the hon. Member for Seaham, of increased freights or general requisitioning, we have surely to take this point into consideration. A general requisition is bound to mean a loss of the services of owners and managers who can at the present time provide experience and a wealth of knowledge which could not easily be obtained elsewhere, and at a time when, in all sections of the House, we are prepared to look at the problem from the point of view of the requirements and necessities that stare us in the face, and not from any preconceived notions of politics or inflexible rules of economics in which we may believe.
It is vital for the interests of the country that we should give a try-out of a method which will preserve for us that useful material in ownership and management at the present time. Therefore, I suggest that from that aspect of our problem the case for some increase in freight rates is made out and is necessary in the interests of the country to-day. I re-echo what has been said about increasing the field of consultation, and I am sure that in that regard my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary will do everything that can be done to see that the industry as a whole is given its proper voice in every problem that

may arise. I cannot help seeing this industry, not only in the light of the national necessity and the crisis of the present time, but in the light in which I have seen it in Liverpool for so many years—in the years of depression and unemployment which pass so slowly one after another—-and I hope that we shall be able not only to deal triumphantly with the difficulties of the war, but to put the industry on a basis which in the time that may succeed the war will avoid these periods of depression and unemployment which have affected so dread fully all sections of the industry during the last few years.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: It will be agreed on all sides of the House that there is a will that this war should be won, and won by utilising every element that can help to its winning. As one who with his colleagues on these benches pressed on the Government the necessity of appointing a Minister of Shipping, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not regard it as an offence when I say that we were disappointed in his appointment. No one will deny the first part of the Prime Minister's reply, when he was questioned about it, that one of the reasons for his appointment was character. No one will deny that character reclines within the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he himself would claim, in regard to shipping and the shipping industry, to have the experience which the Prime Minister claimed that he has. Nevertheless, we welcome the appointment of the Ministry of Shipping, and we are willing to do evtrything that we can to see that it is a success. I want to congratulate the Government, at any rate, on their wisdom in appointing the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) as Parliamentary Secretary, because he carries with him years of experience in the last war. I do not want to get him into any trouble, but I will say that on this side of the House we believe he is a man who has the ability to do the work and that he will hold the scales evenly in all that he does, whether for shipowners or for the men who go to the sea in ships.
We have to criticise the Ministry already. As I see it, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade is merely being cut off and called the Ministry of


Shipping. What has the Minister done —or what have the Government done, for we cannot hold the Minister responsible for things that happened before he took office? In urging the creation of this Ministry, it was claimed by Members on this side, on behalf of the men's union, that there should be proper and effective representation of labour when it was established. To say that the appointment of an advisory council of nine shipowners and nine trade union representatives is meeting the promise is not correct. The Minister now finds himself surrounded by a body of advisers who are shipowners in every sense. On what are they to advise? On how to run ships, I presume at a profit but with little regard for the men who are employed within those ships. We on this side of the House believe that the representatives of the trade unions can offer to the Minister as good and efficient advice, without the desire for profit, as can ever be offered by shipowners. After all, the owners are there in their own interests. I do not blame them, for where the treasure is you will find the heart, and it is not unfair that they should look after their own interests.
What have the Government done with regard to the whole position of the Mercantile Marine? Were the Government unaware, for instance, that they were likely to lose the great majority of the services of neutral shipping in the Baltic prior to this war? Were they not fully seized of the fact that Herr Hitler would take the fullest advantage of his position there and that he had little or no regard for any agreements entered into? Why have not the Government, as in the last war, taken the fullest advantage of neutral shipping to assist the Mercantile Marine. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe) has raised the question of the additional amount granted, and, if I understood him correctly, he said that either the rates which we are now paying to the neutrals who are working for us are uneconomic to the Government, and, therefore, should not be paid; or, if they are economic, the same rates should be applied to British shipowners.

Mr. Fyfe: Not the same rate. I suggested that they are an indication that some increase should be given.

Mr. Smith: Every war is uneconomic, and the Government ought to be prepared to harness the shipping of every neutral country if it will aid us to win the war. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for West Derby when he quoted his figures was, I thought, the best argument for the complete control of the shipping of this country. If the uneconomic rates that are being paid to the neutrals who are working for us are going to put them in a better financial position as competitors when the war is over, the Government ought surely to control our shipping and see that when the war is over the shipping industry is not in any worse position than when they took it over. I am sure that that is sound.
I take the view that complete cunfiol is the only way out of this problem. If the experience of the last war is any guide, the Minister will see that just as fabulous profits were made then, they will, if he listens to the advisers whom he has, again be made in this war. It is the Minister's duty to see that the shipping is there, whatever calls may be made on it from profits or wages, and that it does an efficient service towards the prosecution and winning of the war. Everybody knows, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) pointed out, that the profits of shipowners in the last war were such that the late Mr. Bonar Law was abel to stand at the Box and say that he made £1,000 profit on a nominal sums at the cost of the loss of life at sea. A former Prime Minister of this country was able to make that statement. That experience will be repeated unless the Minister takes complete control of shipping and establishes a set of rates that will suit the country and will leave the Government in a position of having to replace the shipping as they found it at the end of the war.
All the difficulties with which we find ourselves now are attributable to the President of the Board of Trade. He always took the attitude, prior to the establishment of this Ministry, of Mr. Micawber, that something would turn up. Nothing has turned up. When I hear the First Lord of the Admiralty telling us over the air that we have 18,000,000 tons of shipping, I wonder whether he has reference to documents which exist, and which will


tell him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), speaking on 8th July, 1938, 16 months before the war, said this:
If you take United Kingdom shipping alone you have a reduction from 1914 to 1937 from 19,250,000 tons to 17,500,000 tons, a reduction of nearly 1,750,000 tons, and that includes certain types of vessels, like oil tankers, which are replacing the coal-mining industry.
He quoted the Chamber of Shipping as saying:
The effectual tonnage for the carrying of foodstuffs and raw materials and troops in the event of war is only 14,000,000 gross tons as compared with 17,500,000 in 1914."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1938; col. 806, Vol. 338.]
He is right. Is Lord Lloyd wrong when he uses the same figure, and is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook wrong? Is the First Lord of the Admiralty right? Somebody is wrong. Further on the right hon. Gentleman said that this was a serious reduction of 20 per cent., and that there was a corresponding reduction in the number of ships. Before the war we had 8,500 ships and today only 7,000, a reduction of 1,600, or, if we exclude oil tankers, a reduction of 2,000 ships. The Chamber of Shipping say that these facts are disquieting when it is remembered that 7,000,000 tons were sunk in the Great War and that the population of this country which has to be sustained has gone up by 5,000,000 to approximately 50,000,000. I should say that the present-day figures are even less than have been quoted, because many thousand tons of snipping have been sold to foreigners in the last 16 months and we did not get from the yards new tonnage which would make up that loss.
Let me say a word about shipyards and shipbuilding. It is common knowledge that National Securities, Limited, were responsible under what they were pleased to call rationalisation for doing away with 40 per cent. of the shipbuilding capacity of this country, with the result that yards in the constituency of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) and others have been idle for years. The yards are still there. Are the Government ever going to make use of those yards, which were left idle simply because they did not produce a profit for the shipbuilders and shipowners ,many of whom have a dual considering the rehabilitation of those capacity? The Government ought to be

yards. Everyone knows that a large part of the existing yards have been taken over for naval requirements. Without a navy we should have very little merchant service. Is not the fact that so large a proportion of the yards still in operation have been taken over for Admiralty requirements a greater reason for utilising the idle yards which were cut out a few years ago? I put that seriously to the Minister and ask him, in the interests of this country and of winning the war, that those idle yards should be brought back into service at the earliest possible moment.
Another difficulty which the Minister has had is that most of the appointments to his Ministry had been made for him before he came into office, and therefore he had no choice in the matter. Without disparaging anybody who is there to advise him or to assist him I want to ask him this: Does he think that some of the people now in those jobs are the right people to advise or assist him? There are three people whom I will mention— Mr. Vernon Thomson; Mr. Turnbull, of Cardiff; and Mr. Basil Sanderson, of the Port of London. What great success have these men ever made in their own businesses, such as would give them the right to come in and take over a great national institution in time of war? What efficiency have they displayed? In the last war the Department was run by four of the most efficient civil servants— I will not mention names—who really got on with the job of shipping. Not so in this war. No civil servant has been brought in for the purpose of controlling shipping. I suggest to the Minister that he should look into the qualifications of these gentlemen who are there to advise him in the conduct of shipping during the war. They have had no experience of the handling of great national problems, and yet they are called upon to advise the Minister in the direction of shipping now.
I would also ask the Government whether they have made any approaches to neutral shipowners with a view to taking over their services. I estimate that in the Baltic alone there is approximately 10,000,000 tons of shipping, most of it lying idle to-day. Those ships are afraid to come out of the Baltic and to enter into our trade, partly on the ground that they may suffer the attentions of a gentleman who is looking after the interests,


presumably, of Germany. There is a great opportunity for bringing in the whole of the Baltic trade under the convoy system. Then as to America. Under the legislation just passed there practically the whole of the 14,000,000 tons of American shipping which used, on occasions, to visit the ports of this country, is now to be barred from doing so. That is a serious thing. Has the Minister any ideas about that? I suppose that some of his advisers will not like what I am going to say, but has he considered the question of getting an agreement on the allocation of trade, so that the American tonnage can be utilised for services now run by our ships, thus releasing more of our shipping for the purpose of winning this war? Some American ships have asked to go under the Panama flag and have advertised for British officers to serve in those ships. I believe that it would be possible to arrange for some of the trades which are held to-day by British shipowners to be transferred, thus releasing many tons of our own shipping for the prosecution of the war.
There is also the question of the utilisation of trawlers. I think I am correct in saying that before the war the Government were offered numbers of trawlers at practically scrap prices. Although the President of the Board of Trade had the power to buy, he declared that he did not want them and that their owners might sell them abroad if they liked. Those ships were, in fact, sold abroad. When the war came, the taking-over of great numbers of trawlers by the Navy for mine-sweeping purposes left this country mote or less without fish. It is no use saying that we did not know the war was coming. We had had the word of the Prime Minister, after the events of last September twelve months, that he was determined to give this country arms and that, if forced to it, we should go to war. That was a lively anticipation of events to come. In view of those circumstances the Government should have seen to it that those trawlers were kept in the service of this country.
Another subject which is bound up with shipping is that of dock labour. The Government had months to consider the question of dock labour. They consulted the Transport Workers' Union and received what advice that and other unions could give them, and yet we had

been weeks in the war before any real consideration was given to the transfer of dock labour. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned the position in some of the East Coast ports. I wish to draw attention to the position in Liverpool. Would it surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that there are days when as many as 4,000 dock labourers are standing idle in Liverpool at this time? What is wrong with the system at the Ministry for allocating shipping to ports, that it allows thousands of men to be idle daily in the second largest shipping port in this country? Birkenhead, too, is practically idle. Why? Not because there is not work there, but because there is a nice argument going on among the various elements in shipping and the docks as to who is to be responsible for the cost of the goods going through the Mersey Tunnel. That is a serious statement to make, but it is true. It is little things like that which interfere with the effective running of our shipping, and it is the job of the Ministry to see that these little difficulties are eliminated at the earliest possible moment.
It is estimated that in the last war the men at the docks worked on an average 14 hours a day actually shipping and discharging cargo. The rest of the day was made up with other services, such as getting the goods down. I venture to suggest that to-day the average hours are about nine. It is a serious indictment, if it is true, that at this time, with a smaller merchant service than we had before the war, we are getting less than nine hours a day spent on actual shipment, whereas in the last war it was 14 hours. The men have said to the responsible authorities that they are willing to forgo the Saturday afternoon and Sunday, and are willing to work those hours under trade union conditions. What advantage has been taken of that offer? No advantage, except in the case of an odd ship here and there. The Minister must look into these things in order to secure efficiency.
Let me give an instance of what occurred in Liverpool docks in the blackout. The question of lighting arose in connection with the discharge of a ship. One of our officials who was standing by said, "What are you worrying about? What is the matter with fixing a bell tent


on the crane top? That would throw the light down upon about four trucks, and we could get on with the work. "But that idea did not accord with some particular regulation which exists, although it was quite a simple proposal which would have facilitated the shipment of the goods. I could amuse the House with many stories of things which happened in the last war. If the Minister would see that a stevedore is allowed to do his job without so much interference from people who know little about it we might get more effective work. A story is told of an occasion when a gentleman in the dockers' battalion, in uniform, came on the quay while a stevedore was sizing-up the job he was about to tackle. He had to load some steam-rollers and a quantity of harness—at any rate they were the two chief items in the consignment. He was sorting the cargo out with a view to putting the steam-rollers amidships and the lighter stuff fore and aft. This interfering young officer said, "What are you wasting time over this for? Put it in the hold just as it stands." The stevedore did so, and the result was that the ship trimmed by the head, and when she was warped off the dock-side her propeller was sticking out of the water and she had to be brought alongside again, discharged and reloaded.
If practical men were consulted about turning ships round more quickly there would be willing assistance from all the elements which make up dock labour. Or is there an idea in the Minister's mind that he would prefer militarising the men? Should I be right in saying that some of his advisers have already suggested that course—that some of the shipowners have said that it might be a good thing if the men were militarised and taken away from their conceptions of civil life? If so, I warn him that he will have very serious difficulties with the men. We were assured about a week ago that wagons had been pooled, as if the pooling of wagons was a wise thing which was going to get coal into ships' bottoms. I can give many instances of dealers on the market getting an order for a shipment of coal which will allow 10, 20 or 30 trucks, covering 400, 500 or 600 tons of coal, to stand in the way of another ship at the quayside waiting to get 500 tons, where practically the whole of the coal is from one pit. Why should there

not be for every port a coastal controller who would have the power to say that no one truck of coal should stand on the road preventing the shipping of other coal? In the last war we had these controllers, and it would be a good thing if we had them again and did away with this holding up of the quick delivery of coal. We are told that one of our great objects is to get as much coal to neutrals as possible in order, as it were, to keep them sweet. I ask the Minister to see that no obstacle is placed in the way of the utmost efficiency in getting the coal into the ship.
Some time ago the coastwise trade put in a claim for a subsidy. The representative of the Board of Trade assured a deputation that, if they gave it, they would be subsidising a section of industry which was competing with two other forms—road and rail transport. That is alright, but coastwise shipping has now pressed on the Government the necessity of bringing it under the ordinary war risks insurance, and not marine insurance. It travels mostly within territorial waters. It is doing a great service, and in my submission can do a much greater service for the country, if the Minister will get hold of it, than it has done so far during the war. They have said rightly that they have occasionally to travel outside territorial waters and, because they do that, they have to meet the cost of marine insurance instead of war risk insurance. In many cases it means the difference between getting work and not getting work. I do not say this with any ill-feeling to any section of transport, but it is fostering the railways as against coastwise shipping. The railways have increased their goods traffic by 9,000,000 tons—approximately a 33⅓ per cent. increase. They have got that from somewhere. It can come only from one of two places—road transport or coastwise. The railways perform a wonderful function for the country, but you cannot have it both ways. They should not be in the position of competing with coastwise from the mere fact that, in its ordinary trade, it has to go outside the three-mile limit. I ask the Minister seriously to look into that. If he wants to get real efficiency he must see that all the elements that make up transport are used efficiently.
Again, what is he doing about canals? In my view they should be used as a complement to coastwise shipping. They


should join up with it. But I see no evidence that they are being utilised in serving coastwise shipping. If they were used more effectively, the goods carried on them would be less liable to attack from the air. If coastwise shipping wants to make any approach on any subject connected with the industry, if it is wagons, it has to go to the Board of Trade, if it is the running of wagons, to the Ministry of Transport, if it is port shipping, it has to go to the Ministry of Shipping, and, if it is convoys, to the Admiralty. Then each of these Departments has to go to the Treasury. What a foolish policy that is. It would not be wise for me to say here the things that I hope to have an opportunity of conveying to the Minister. We do not want to convey to the enemy any of our shortcomings. But I am convinced that if these things are properly brought to the notice of the Minister he will do anything he can to avoid a continuance of them. It might be a wise thing for not only shipping but the whole of transport to come under a Ministry which could control the whole thing in every aspect, on the water, in the docks and on the land, where it could be looked into from the point of view of carrying out an efficient service.
I hate to repeat this, but I am an old seaman, and I am not a bit ashamed of it. I want the Minister to understand that the men in the Merchant Service, in the last war, since the last war and during this war, and for as long as this war may continue, are willing to give the country unstinted service, not for laurels, not for medals, but in the firm belief that in following their natural avocation they are serving the best interests of the country. My hon. Friend has submitted points with regard to conditions, wages, compensation, the unconscionable hours and the pay of officers. If they have any regard for this unstinted service, which is practically thrown at the Government, in decency give them the honour and the reward that are due to them.

7.9 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: This is the first opportunity I have had of congratulating the Minister of Shipping on his appointment. I certainly do so, and I believe that he possesses the necessary character and experience to ensure success in the important office in which he is now serving.

One thing of which I am certain is that he will never let his Department down. The new Parliamentary Secretary has had experience in the last war. He is new to the Front Bench, and I congratulate him on the office that he has attained. We must wait and see whether the great expectations that we all have are fulfilled.
This is not the first time that I have endeavoured to express the views of shipowners in this House. On occasions I have tried to represent all sections of the industry—liners, tramps, cargo liners, coasters and tankers—and where I have not expressed the views of the industry, or where I have only expressed my own views, I have attempted to make that clear to the House. This evening I speak as a tramp owner, but I feel sure that much of what I have to say will apply equally, or to an even greater extent, to other branches of the industry. I have listened to many speeches on shipping by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and once again I found myself in considerable agreement with much of what he said. I was particularly impressed by his statement that it was essential to have contented officers and seamen. I am sure that is true, but I think he might also have added contented shipowners, for they are an important section of the shipping industry. Let me tell the House at once that which the Minister, no doubt, already knows: so far as owners are concerned, the industry is seething with discontent and is indignant at the treatment which it has received. Before the war I was speaking to a shipping friend of mine in the City and we were wondering what our respective positions would be at the end of the war which we then felt was coming. My friend suggested that we should be dead millionaires. I think he would now have to revise his opinion and he would probably think that our position as shipowners at the end of the war would be more likely that of living paupers. That is certainly a much happier fate, although I am not at all sure that it would be better in the national interest.

Miss Wilkinson: Which would you rather be?

Colonel Ropner: Shipowners can be replaced after a reasonable interval but it may take years, and very expensive


years, to make good the wastage of war or to repair a derelict Mercantile Marine.
From what has already been said in this Debate, I am not convinced that it is generally recognised that, to all intents and purposes, tramp shipping is already nationalised. Every voyage has to be licensed; when permission to undertake a certain voyage has been obtained—or it may be refused—the ship will eventually start on a voyage under Government direction at controlled rates. It is true, of course, that the Government rates are at this moment considerably in excess of the pre-war rates of freight, but there is certainly no profit—

Mr. David Adams: Does that apply to all tonnage?

Colonel Ropner: I thought I made it clear when I commenced my speech that I was speaking as a tramp owner. I was saying that in spite of the increase in the rates of freight there is certainly no profit and in many cases substantial and heavy losses are sustained. There are many reasons for this, and I have heard no shipowner describe one of the reasons as the vexatious interference to which one hon. Member opposite referred. I am sure that no shipowner believes that the interference to which he is subject to-day could fairly be described as vexatious, but of course it does lead to very heavy expenses and, as I have said, losses on the voyage. Long detention has been experienced in every case, first in connection with the stiffening of the ship and then with the final mounting of the gun. The convoy system, which I have every reason to believe is on the whole being most efficiently carried out, inevitably leads to delay. As has already been said, ships have to proceed to a rendezvous where they may have to wait many days. The fastest and some of the most efficient shipping has to steam at the rate of the slowest ship in the convoy, and, generally speaking, a voyage takes about twice as long as would be the case in normal times. Again, no doubt for excellent reasons, ships are frequently diverted. Running costs have increased enormously and, perhaps the most important item of all, repairs are not only slower but far more expensive than they were in prewar days. I would repeat, therefore, that voyages to-day are entailing heavy losses.
While these are the conditions ruling in the British Mercantile Marine, neutral tramps are being chartered by the Government at fantastically high rates of freights. It is a fact that, in spite of warnings repeated not once, but hundreds and even thousands of times before the war, the British Mercantile Marine has been allowed to fall to numbers which are entirely inadequate for the needs of this nation.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I presume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that the majority of shipowners in this House would decry speed as a serious thing.

Colonel Ropner: I did not quite hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks; perhaps he would be good enough to repeat them.

Mr. Smith: The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the speed of the vessels and to the fact that the fastest ship was held up by the slowest. He was developing that point when I said that when the question of speed was raised in this House it was the shipowners who put their hand against it.

Colonel Ropner: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should raise that subject at the moment, as it is quite irrelevant to the matter with which I am dealing. I was saying that the fastest ship is often the most uneconomical ship, because it has to go at the speed of the slowest. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to scrap every slow ship and build new ones his remark has no point at all.
I was going to say, let us thank our lucky stars for the skill and courage of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force which seem so well able at this moment to defend both British and neutral tonnage from the torpedoes, guns and bombs of the enemy, and I should like to add my tribute to the courage of the men of the Mercantile Marine, who so bravely face the perils of their calling, and who, incidentally, give such a very good account of themselves when they meet German submarines. It may interest the House to know that while the companies with which I am concerned have lost two ships by submarine action during the war, two others of our ships have, when attacked, given such a good account of themselves that they have disabled two German submarines, both of


which were sent to the bottom by destroyers within a few hours of breaking off their actions with the Mercantile Marine. I am told—I hope it does not sound immodest—that at the Admiralty "Ropner's Navy" is almost as well known as His Majesty's—although no credit is due in this case to the owners, but all praise is due to those gallant seamen who, largely untrained, certainly not so trained as the German crews, engaged German submarines for four or five hours and by their action led to the final destruction of those submarines.
I fear that the admiration that I feel for those who sail under both the White Ensign and the Red has led me to digress. I was about to tell the House that, owing to the lack of vision which has led, I submit, to the shameful neglect of British shipping by successive Governments since 1925, this country is going to pay as many millions of pounds to neutral shipping as it would have been necessary to pay thousands of pounds to our own companies in order to ensure that this nation should maintain an adequate merchant fleet during the past 15 years.
The: British Mercantile Marine must not be swept from the sea; subsidy will be met by subsidy.
These were brave words, uttered by a recent President of the Board of Trade; but they were followed by niggardly action and haggling for months, and sometimes for years. What a dismal record is that of our shipping legislation of the past few years. What encouragement has been given even to those within the industry who, while appealing for Government help, could not appreciate the true nature of the threat to which British shipping was subject? It was not only the President of the Board of Trade, but, to a certain extent, representative, or non-representative, shipowners, who were fearful of internal competition, who talked about scrapping two ships before owners were to be assisted to build one, and who quite recently discussed the advisability of tying up ships, when the number of British ships on the high seas had been reduced already by 2,000. In the summer of this year, after the Munich crisis, the Government produced a Bill which was a bitter disappointment to British shipowners. I say "bitter," not because it did not produce what the industry considered to be the requisite amount of cash, but because the Govern-

ment had evidently not begun to appreciate that, whatever had happened with the armies and navies and air forces, the merchant navies of the world were already at war, and we were being beaten. Now we are all at war, and the Government which neglected the merchant navy in the past is at present—I am glad to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has occupied his post for only a few weeks—crippling the industry. Am I wrong in suggesting that the British Mercantile Marine should be allowed to make reasonable profits?
Having regard to the number of shipping advisers that the right hon. Gentleman will find in his Ministry, fears have been expressed from the benches opposite that the views of the Minister will be overborne by the avaricious intentions of these shipowners. I have exactly the opposite feeling. I know many of the men in that Ministry. I know that they are of high character and ability; but my fear is that there will be a sort of inverted sense of fair play, and that the pressure on the Minister from within the Ministry will be such as will induce him to give the industry a deal which will be somewhat less than fair, rather than in the opposite direction. I think that any hon. Member who knows the men to whom I refer will say that that fear is more well-grounded than the one expressed from the benches opposite. I am afraid it is true that more ships will be lost, and it is certainly true that new ships will cost one and a half times, twice, or three times as much as those which have been lost, and which they are built to replace. Unless the Government fix rates which will show a profit, how can shipowners build new ships?
The Minister is in the position of being able to do almost anything he likes with this great industry. It is a very heavy responsibility. He can, I think, ask for powers to limit dividends. I want the House to believe that I am not concerned with dividends. It is the future of the British Mercantile Marine of which I am thinking at this moment. As I have said, neutrals are building up enormous reserves. Limit dividends by legislation, but let the shipping companies put something into reserve; let them build ships during the war, and have something with which to fight after the war. I feel certain that the Minister's advisers will fill up any gaps which the Chancellor of the


Exchequer may have left open, and through which a man might crawl to greater individual wealth. If it is the intention, as I believe it is, to stop increases in personal fortunes, leave the shipowners to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you do not trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urge the Minister of Shipping to proceed on the same lines, and I will urge him to take the same action. But leave the shipping companies the power to create a reserve, to build ships which they can use after hostilities have stopped. The Minister must make absolutely certain that, somehow or other, real confidence as to the future returns to the industry. There must not only be that incentive to build, but—let me repeat—there must also be a reserve with which to pay for new ships.

7.30 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: We are accustomed to shocks in this House, but we have seldom listened to such a shocking exhibition as that of a prominent and wealthy shipowner making a powerful plea to be allowed to make dividends out of the necessities of his own countrymen.

Colonel Ropner: Was the hon. Lady equally- shocked when an hon. Gentleman on her own side, and an hon. Gentleman on the Liberal benches, made the same plea?

Miss Wilkinson: At least they offered an alternative, and, in any case, they are not shipowners, but possibly altruists. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman was begging us here to increase his income and that of his own particular class. May I join in the congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on his new appointment? I hope the object of the Government has been to secure expert help and not to silence one of the best informed critics on shipping in this House. I thought, when I read about the hon. Gentleman's appointment, that he must have felt rather like the priest who was taken in the tumbrel to the guillotine and comforted himself with the thought that, at any rate, in a few hours he would soon have the answers to his own spiritual doubts. The effect of making the hon. Gentleman Parliamentary Secretary is that, I suppose by now, even though he has been Parliamentary Secretary only a few hours, he will at

least know the answer to his own questions which he has been putting to the Minister of Shipping. The only thing that worries us is whether we are to be allowed to share his knowledge.
I very much want to know the answers to some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has been asking. He has been pressing hard to know the principle on which the remuneration for requisition planning is to be fixed, which—and I use his words —with due regard to increased cost will secure the normal rate of profit on peacetime standards and no more. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) has left, as he would have been comforted by these words. We really want to know why there is this delay in deciding the principle. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought us the complaints of a shipowner, but what concerns this House as representing the taxpayer is to know whether the delay is due to the shipowners trying to force high rates from the Government and, after the exhibition given by the hon. and gallant Member, I presume that that is the case. The conduct of the shipping industry during the last war justified every suspicion, and it is pleasing to think how strongly this suspicion must be in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the new Parliamentary Secretary. In that very fine book, "Allied Shipping Control," which has been a bible of mine for some time, he pointed out that, for the first 26 months only of the last war, the shipping industry made no less than £262,000,000 profit, which was nearly equal to its entire capital in 1914. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member has left, because there is something I wanted to tell him which I am sure he would have appreciated. The "Shipping World" has taken his words and added to them a real heart song. On 25th October it said:
War, famine, and pestilence, shipowners of a past generation regarded as offering opportunities for building up reserves from which new ventures might be financed.
War, famine and pestilence are the opportunity at present, looking at the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, of the younger generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) mentioned the Bonar Law speech. Mr. Bonar Law pointed


out that on an investment of £8,100 on which he would have been glad to get 5 per cent., £405, in 1915, he received £3,624, and in 1916, £3,847 profit, a total of E7,471 in two years, instead of £810. A voice from these benches asked, "Was that after paying Excess Profits Duty?" and Mr. Bonar Law replied, "Yes." That gives some indication of what those profits were like.
I would like to tell the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash that we cannot really expect the Ministry to fix these profits according to neutral profits. My hon. Friend rightly said that we may have to pay through the nose for neutral shipping, but when the hon. and gallant Member demands that the rate shall be fixed higher because it is necessary for the shipping companies to have reserves, I would like to ask him how the shipping companies spent their reserves after the last war? One of the tragic scandals of that war, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his book, was the dissipation of these reserves in war dividends, excess profits and in buying up ships at fantastic prices. These reserves were not used to build up Britain's Mercantile Marine. I regret the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not the courage to stay here to be told the truth in the cut-and-thrust of debate. The British shipowners must make sacrifices like the rest of us. Why should they be exempt? It is fantastic to leave the shipping industry in the hands of the men who had mismanaged it for years and who came crawling for a subsidy.
If ever there was an occasion for an industry to be nationalised it is now, and if ever a case was proved up to the hilt for the national control and ownership of a vital service, it is that of the shipping industry. It is never a pleasant job to have to act the role of a pessimist in this House, but ever since I returned to the House in 1935, I have pointed out, whenever you have given me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, what would be the result if the activities of the National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, were to be left untouched. Now we have seen what they have done. The British losses in this war up to the middle of November are 53 ships, totalling just under 250,000 tons. That, I admit, is less than we feared, but they have not started bombing our ports yet. I have stood on the quayside at Barcelona and have seen what it was like

to have ships on the quayside bombed and how terribly helpless they were as targets. Therefore, we shall be glad to have some of the neutral shipping that some hon. Members of this House sneered at during the Spanish campaign, if the enemy bombs our ports.
What is the relation of tonnage sunk so far to our present shipbuilding capacity? I speak as a Tyneside Member. In the last eight years the annual output of the Tyne yards was only 90,000 tons. As I have said, our shipping losses have not been as large as we feared, but in two months the Germans have sunk the equivalent of 2½ years of the shipping output of the Tyne. National Shipbuilding Securities Limited, have scrapped 40 per cent. of our shipping capacity, and I would impress that upon the Minister. In reply to a question which I put to him he was good enough to say that he no longer regarded the ban of National Shipbuilding Securities Limited, as necessarily valid, but, as I have indicated, National Shipbuilding Securities have not only scrapped 40 per cent. of our shipping capacity but have scrapped what Lord Runciman said were the finest shipbuilding sites in the world. Of these, one was in the town which I represent, Jarrow, Palmer's shipyard, was one of the big six shipyards of this country, and one of the most efficient shipyards of the country. It was admitted by Lord Runciman to be the finest shipbuilding site in the world. What have National Shipbuilding Securities done there? They have not merely closed the shipyard but they have torn up in most cases practically all the shipbuilding equipment.
If we were doing our duty we should have the leaders of National Shipbuilding Securities before this House, for what they have done. This was not done in a time of settled peace, when we did not expect war, but in a period when Lord Baldwin said we were being forced to re-arm. If we calculate the amount that has been spent in public assistance and unemployment assistance for the men thrown out of work in that unfortunate town, it would have sufficed to have kept the shipyard on a decent maintenance basis and would have enabled us to build up a reserve of national ships. Now the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash comes forward and blames the Government. He asks why have we not got this reserve of national ships; yet he speaks as a repre-


sentative of shipowners who called the Government every name they could think of when they merely ventured to consider that it might be advisable to put a few ships away in one of the islets of the Dart.
I would ask the Minister whether he is going to take up the question of these sites, because to re-equip one of the sites would probably take a year at least. I do not want merely to come here and plead for my own devastated constituency, which has lost its great shipyard, but I do not want the Minister to be told by one of his advisers that the site of the shipyard is now covered by a steelworks, and that the site is no longer available. That is not correct. There is a steelworks and two small industries, but that great site is substantially there. I pay my tribute to the Commissioner for the Special Areas who has consistently refused to allow what he has described as a remarkable site for shipbuilding, broken up. He has had the industries that have come there put into a small corner. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to look into this matter and see what possibilities there are, if a new yard has to be built.
I notice from the current number of the "Shipping World" that the British Government have ordered 30 ships of a standard size from Canadian shipyards, and that four builders are ready to carry out those orders. Two of them have had considerable experience in building vessels. These orders are going to Canada, and they will help in building up a shipbuilding industry there which may be a very real competitor of ours at the end of the war. I notice that one of the firms is Vickers, Limited, who were so anxious to get Palmers Yard closed down. If it had not been for the activities of Sir James Lythgoe, Vickers and the rest, these ships would have been built in this country by British labour, and they could have been built at a time when that labour was unemployed and when its skill was fading away. I have a letter from a woman, who points out what is happening. The Government would do nothing about shipbuilding, except to allow National Shipbuilding Securities to close a yard, thereby keeping the men on the barest limit of subsistence and allowing their skill to rot.
What is happening now? The woman says:
I should like to say a few words concerning the calling up of shipyard apprentices of 20 to 21 years of age for the Militia. The shipyards were closed for at least 15 years from 1921 to 1936. There would have been thousands of skilled workers turned out in that time, but there are very few mechanics to-day between the ages of 21 and 35. I have a son, aged 21, whom I put to his father's trade as a rivetter, and although he has another 12 months to serve, he is a really good mechanic. There are not six rivetters under 50 in this port, and those of 50 are prematurely old men, through years of unemployment. There are men of 70 and over employed in the dry docks here. The Government has called my son up and put him to the Royal Signals Corps, while his father, aged 50, has to work every day and every week-end since the war began, after years of unemployment. I ask you how long can these men stand this strain while the Government are taking the young men away?
The skilled men are not there and the ships are not there. We are fighting for our lives, and the Government have known this all along. This is not a war of which we can see an early end. We know that we have our backs to the wall and that everything we care for is at stake. We have to ask for equal sacrifice whether from shipowners or men. The Minister of Shipping and the Parliamentary Secretary would go down to posterity as having done a very great job for the nation if they would say: "We are not going to have the tragic experience of the last war repeated, but, instead, we are going to have a national service to meet a national need."

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: When the Prime Minister was challenged about appointing the right hon. Member for the Pollock Division (Sir J. Gilmour) as Minister of Shipping he said that he appointed him because of character and experience. It was suggested that the right hon. Gentleman had no experience of shipping. I want to disabuse the minds of those who think along those lines. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Shipping has been connected with shipping right from his grandfather's days, and it is news to me that a man must belong to a particular industry before he can be the Minister of a certain Department. It has always been laid down in our party that it was a recommendation to office to have no knowledge of the particular Department. But the Minister of Shipping, much as I respect


the man personally, is not going to ride away on the excuse that might be made for him that because he has no knowledge of the business we do not expect great things from him. I expect great things of him, and woe betide him if they are not forthcoming, as far as I am concerned. We have pressed the Government time and again for the appointment of a Minister of Shipping, just as I have pressed the Government time and again for a Minister of reconstruction as soon as the war is over. I represent the greatest shipbuilding centre in the world. Ninety-five per cent. of our workers are engaged on war work. What is going to become of them when peace arrives Heaven only knows. I do not, and neither do the employers in the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. They are very distressed about the matter.
At question time to-day I questioned the Minister in regard to the shipbuilding side of his Ministry. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman when he replies—and I hope he will reply better than he did at question time, although I know that it is not a matter which could be dealt with by question and answer— whether he has on his staff a practical shipbuilder who is capable of taking over the management of a shipbuilding yard? My information, not from the workers or from the managers, is that there is no practical man on the staff, and, not only that, but the most efficient managerial part of shipbuilding staffs in Great Britain is not being tapped by the Minister. As to the running of a ship and the conditions on a ship I cannot say anything more than can a simple passenger, but I know something about shipbuilding and engineering. I have passed all my life in engineering and I know that I view with alarm the idea that this side of the business should pass into the hands of civil servants.
In the last war the Government adopted the plan of advising shipbuilders to take on chartered accountants as managers. In every case it was a gigantic failure. They went further and instituted the idea that, in order to co-operate and co-ordinate all the different departments in a big yard connected with the building of ships, an admiral, a real admiral, a man who was in the habit of commanding men, should be brought in. Again, that had to be given up in every case. That was the experience

of Sir James Lithgow, Sir William Beardmore and Sir Charles Craven, and the Government had to adopt what I am now suggesting, the appointment of a practical man. Canada has received orders to build ships, but Canada has no practical experience in the building of the particular ships which are required at the moment. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take it from me, not in a critical way but as giving him the advice which has been given to me to give to him by men who are employing thousands of shipbuilders, that they view with alarm the idea of handing over the building of ships by the Government to men who have no knowledge of the industry.

Mr. Maxton: I am following the hon. Member with interest. He as talking about the managers of shipyards. There is no proposal, as far as I can gather, that the present managers of shipyards should be discharged.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear to the hon. Member and therefore it is apparent that I have not succeeded in making myself clear to the rest of the House. My point is that as the Government are going to build ships it should be shipbuilders who should see that these ships are built not civil servants, who have no knowledge of the industry. That is my point.

Mr. Maxton: That is just the point on which I want to be clear. It is a fact that most of our Clyde shipbuilders have had experience of building ships for Government Departments before, for the Admiralty and on subsidy for the Board of Trade. As I understand it, the relationships between the Clyde shipbuilders and civil servants representing the Admiralty have always been good and harmonious.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is where the hon. Member is making a mistake. When civil servants have come in to interfere with shipbuilding, neither on the Clyde nor on the Tyne nor anywhere else have the relations been good, and that is why shipbuilders are so anxious that it should be a practical man who will give instructions as to what is to be done and what is not to be done, and see that what should be done first is done first. For instance, rudder posts, which take a considerable time to make, can be gone ahead with


before they start to lay down the keel. If these things are left to civil servants, they will start on the job at the wrong end, and interfere with the shipbuilders' work in a section of the business in which the shipbuilders have been reared and trained.
I want now to say a word or two about National Shipbuilders Security, Limited. I opposed their action from the very beginning, and I was not very much supported on these benches when I did so. One of the finest equipped yards in Britain, comparatively speaking, a new yard, Beardmore's in Dalmuir, was shut down by National Shipbuilders Security, Limited. A quarter of a mile further down the Clyde, one of the most efficient yards. Miller Napier's, was closed; and in Dumbarton, Harland and Wolff's, commonly known as Macmillan's yard, one of the most up-to-date yards in Britain, was shut down. These three yards in my constituency were closed. The House was told that redundant yards would be closed, but the yards to which I am referring were not redundant. They were yards equipped with up-to-date machinery. To-day, they are scrapped. There were no better equipped yards in the world than the last two yards I mentioned, Miller Napier's and Macmillan's, for building the type of ship that is now so desperately required by the Government. I do not say anything against Sir James Lithgow personally, but why did he, as the leading hand, initiate the idea of shutting down those yards? Was it in the interests of Britain? Not a wee bit of it. It was in the interests of the shipbuilders. The men and the country were not considered for one moment. It has to be remembered that in every case the owner of the yard was compensated. I drew the attention of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, to the compensation that was being paid to those shipbuilders and shipowners, and I asked what compensation was being paid to the men in those yards, whom I represented. His reply was a reference to our incomparable social services. Those incomparable social services were the Employment Exchanges for the workers. Now, we are reaping the harvest of the dragon's teeth. This is a result of National Shipbuilders Security, Limited.
Moreover, this happened as far as the shipowners were concerned. After the war, we not only commandeered the German Navy, but we took the whole of the German mercantile fleet. Who got it? The shipowners of this country. Let the Minister of Shipping remember that those patriots, the shipowners, whom we subsidised not so very long ago, got the German mercantile marine for £5 a ton, and that at the time the shipbuilders of this country could not build at under £28 a ton. That is what the shipowners did, and that is what they will do again. That is why I say, every time and all the time, that the only way out of the difficulty is that we should take control of the industry, and take it out of their hands. I am not blaming the men as men; I am blaming us for allowing this to go on. They do not run the industry for the good of the country. My own employer, Beardmore, used to say to me, "This is no philanthropic institution; I run this business for profit." Of course he does, and so do all of them.
I believe the time has come when it is possible to change that system, and to change it now, just as I believe this is the time to change the Government. We ought not to assist the Government to carry on. The Government could not last for one day if it were not for hon. Members on these benches. If this is not a good Government, if this is a Government that landed us in war, we should put it out. At any rate, that is what I was sent here to do, and I am going to do it to the best of my ability. I do not care whether the intelligentsia of the party smile, but that is my attitude. When I look around and see the power that we have in this House and the power that is being handed to the Minister of Shipping, and when I consider what he can do if he likes to exert himself, I must say again, as I have often said before, that I never challenge a statesman's ability, whether he be in a Labour Government or in any other Government, but I challenge his courage. I say to the Minister of Shipping that if he tries to run this Department on orthodox lines, he will go down the drain. There is nothing surer than that.

Mr. McGovern: He is going down it anyhow.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not believe that he is going down it anyhow. It depends upon himself. His doom is not written.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps his resignation is.

Mr. Kirkwood: He will write his doom himself. The future lies with him as far as shipping and shipbuilding in this country are concerned. Coming as he does from the Clyde, we expect great things from him. I have stood here and defended him up to now, and therefore I expect him to deliver the goods. If he does not, we will oppose him, and call the attention of the country to the fact that this is not the man for the job, and that this Government is not a Government with which we ought to collaborate, but is such a Government that we ought to insist upon having a General Election at the earliest possible moment.

8.11. p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: One can recall, in connection with amateur performances of Gilbert and Sullivan operas, the embarrassing position which was sometimes created on the last night if the leading lady received fewer bouquets than some of the other ladies in the cast, with the result that a certain heat and friction developed. I trust that a similar situation will not be created in the Ministry of Shipping, but I have noticed that whereas, in the Press the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary has been greeted with a unanimous chorus of approval, the appointment of the Minister himself has met with an almost unanimous chorus of disapproval. Something of the same sort was to be noticed in the Debate this evening. A great many tributes of praise have been handed to the Parliamentary Secretary, but, as far as I recollect, the only tribute to the Minister was that of an hon. Member who repeated on his behalf the testimonial of the Prime Minister that he was a man of character. Character is by no means a bad qualification for any post, but where shipping is concerned, I should say that integrity and impartiality are qualities very much needed indeed. I must say that I join in the welcome which has been given to the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary. I rejoice to feel that his efficiency and competence, and above all his great experience, are now placed at the service of the country. I hope this may be the forerunner of many similar appointments and that the great fund of knowledge, experience and

confidence which is at present unused, may, in due course, be brought into the country's service.
Before passing to other remarks, I would refer for a moment to the question of the speed of our merchant ships, which has already been mentioned. We must all realise now, that, well satisfied though we are with the success which has attended the working of the convoy system, we are paying a heavy price because of the reduction in the speed of our merchant ships. We are paying that price in extra fuel consumption, in all the expenditure which is involved in convoy work and in the slower arrival of our imports in this country. I noticed the other day a striking illustration showing how the speed of merchant ships is their finest defence against submarines. We read an account of a merchant ship which was attacked. Her nominal speed was, I think, 13½ knots, but she managed to produce 17 knots on this occasion and thus escaped the submarine. What surprised me was to find that the captain alone was decorated for this exploit. I do not begrudge the captain his decoration, but I should have thought that a decoration might also have found its way to the chief engineer, who, presumably was down below sitting on the safety valve during this episode and so enabling this phenomenal speed to be attained.
My chief object in rising is to say a few words as a naval officer regarding the work and qualities of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. Those officers and men are certainly second to none. They are doing their job, because after all, the food is arriving in this country. There may be differences of opinion between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite about what is to be done with it on its arrival and whether it should be rationed or not, but the point is that the Mercantile Marine is doing its job and that imports are coming into this country in a steady flow. This is, of course, the joint work of the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, but every naval officer would agree that in courage, in seamanship and, above all, in resolution, there is nothing to choose between the officers and men of the two Services.
That leads me to another consideration. I have said that this work is the joint work of the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, but compare the conditions of


Lieut and of service in the two forces. I believe the Sovereign is the head of both. He is certainly the head of the Navy and I believe that he is, in some honorary capacity, the head of the master mariners of the Mercantile Marine. The Sovereign can go aboard any ship of the Navy and he will find nothing to be ashamed of when he goes through the men's quarters and sees how the men live, how they are fed and how they are looked after. But I am afraid that the Sovereign in his capacity as head of the master mariners, could hardly go on board any ship of the Mercantile Marine and feel equal satisfaction in what would be shown him of the living conditions of the officers as well of the men. I think a comparison between the conditions in the two Services is a very interesting illustration of the difference between Capitalism and Socialism. The Mercantile Marine is certainly run for private profit and there you find deplorable conditions, whereas the Navy is a State service, and there you find nothing to be ashamed of in the conditions which appertain to those working in it.
Shipowners are, I am sure, very patriotic and loyal men. We have some representatives of them in this House and there is no fault certainly to be found at any time with the patriotism and loyalty which they display in their speeches. I wish all shipowners would decide to manifest their loyalty by making all the merchant ships flying the Red Ensign worthy of this country. After all, a merchant ship is a great advertisement for this country. Our Mercantile Marine goes to ports which are little visited by men-of-war. A ship flying the Red Ensign ought to be a ship which speaks well for us wherever she goes. Unfortunately that is not the case. She is too often something to be ashamed of. Consider this point about the crews. Very often you will see a fine merchant ship which looks very imposing. A ship may be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, with a cargo on board worth more hundreds of thousands of pounds, and she may have 100 passengers, with a crew of 145, but except for two white stewards there may not be a white man on board, apart from the officers. That is a very unfortunate and disgraceful state of affairs indeed.
Do not let it be thought that I am condemning all our merchant ships. I

know how good the conditions are in many modem ships, but in many vessels the conditions are shocking and disgraceful, and, after all, Members on all sides of the House are agreed about this. I remember that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), the last time we debated this matter in the House, spoke very eloquently indeed upon the subject, and I remember those remarkable articles in the "Times" newspaper, which called the attention of the whole country to the shocking conditions obtaining in our Mercantile Marine. I know, of course, that he cannot do much, because his time is so much occupied, but I do wish that the Minister of Shipping would come with me aboard some of these ships and look at the conditions about which I am speaking. I can tell the House this, that in a literal sense of the word the conditions would turn his stomach, unless he had the stomach of a rhinoceros. Reports about these conditions used to go to the Board of Trade. From all our great ports reports on these foul and filthy conditions on British ships used to go to the President of the Board of Trade, and it was his duty to examine those reports. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell me whether any President of the Board of Trade, on receiving any of those reports, ever went down to one of our great ports to see these conditions for himself. Things have not been altered or improved because those who are responsible for these things do not go and see with their own eyes the matters which are reported to them.
I admit at once the great difficulty in this matter. I know that modern regulations and so on are good and that the new ships that are being built are good, but the fact that we are faced with is this, that there is still in existence a great deal of tonnage which is quite capable of earning a profit for its owners, but in which, for structural reasons, the men's accommodation and living spaces cannot be brought up to the modern standard. With all the will in the world, what is called modernisation cannot, for structural reasons, be carried out, and, therefore, the officers and the men who have to go to sea in these ships and earn a profit for the shipowners, although their accommodation is admittedly unsatisfactory, have to put up with it. I have often thought that that state of affairs,


which we must all agree is unfair and unsatisfactory, could be met by a system which was at one time in operation in the Navy in the case of destroyers. At one time destroyers were extremely uncomfortable craft, in which officers and men lived under conditions of considerable hardship and discomfort, and the Admiralty used to allow them hard-lying money. They were given a small addition to their pay, a small bonus, in recognition of the fact that they had to put up with those hardships. Why cannot that be done in the case of the old and unsatisfactory Mercantile Marine tonnage which admittedly is inflicting unfair conditions on the men who serve in it? If those ships are kept afloat because they are capable of earning a profit for their owners, surely it is not too much to ask that their owners should pay a small hard-lying bonus to the men who have to serve in them in order to earn that profit. I throw that idea out, if I may, to the Parliamentary Secretary as a means of meeting what is an admitted difficulty and at the same time an admitted hardship.
I had intended to say something about the state of affairs created by the conditions affecting ships owned by foreigners and flying the Red Ensign, but I will not go into that question to-night. There are Government schemes for disability pensions, widows' pensions, and dependants' allowances, and if they were looked into, it would be found that in the conditions of those schemes engineer officers are placed in an inferior position as compared with deck officers. That is an anomaly which the deek officers themselves, I am sure, would be the first to regret. Again, in connection with the Government scheme of indemnity for loss of personal effects, I would point out that the chief engineer of a ship has, of course, to take to sea with him precision tools and certain instruments. That being so, I think that his indemnity for loss of personal effects should be at least £75. I think the indemnity at present is too low and should be increased on that side. I also notice that electricians are ranked as uncertificated officers in regard to the matter of the loss of personal effects, and that again, I think, is an anomaly.
I would like to call attention too, very briefly, to the old question of the hours of duty that are being worked. They are largely unregulated, and I wish to point

out that now, during the war, there is, of course, a great deal of extra watch keeping, not only at sea in the submarine zones, but also in harbour, and that is a hardship. I would also like to mention again the question of the conditions affecting master mariners. At a time like this, when the master of a ship has a great burden of responsibility thrown on him, this whole matter might well be looked into, and I think that masters should have representation on approved negotiating machinery. There is also the question of coasters. We still have many coasting vessels in which there is only one officer, in addition to the master. That is a great strain in time of peace. Think of what the strain must be in wartime, with so many lights extinguished and other difficulties to contend with. I think it is quite fair to say that in any coasting ship up to 1,000 tons there should be two officers, in addition to the master, and that in any such ship over 1,000 tons there should be three officers, in addition to the master. That, I feel, is not too much to ask for. Also, now that we are in a state of war, I think all foreign-going ships, whether they are above or below 2,500 tons, should carry three officers. Officers of merchant ships at sea at present who are in convoy are having a great deal of extra work thrown on them, and I think it should be compulsory to carry the same number of officers on ships under 2,500 tons as on ships over 2,500 tons.
I feel that the Minister has hoisted his flag in a command fraught with the most grave and anxious responsibilities for this country. I am sure he realises that the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine are every bit as devoted as those of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. We in this House for some time past have heard the Ministers responsible for those three brave defence forces come and take pride, and legitimate pride, in recounting all that they have been doing for the men of those forces in order to bring their conditions of service and living up to modern standards and ideals. I hope with all my heart that during his period of office as Minister of Shipping, which I hope will be a fortunate and prosperous one for the service as well as for the country, he will similarly be able to come to the House and take pride in telling the House of reforms which he has been able to bring about in the


conditions of service and living of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. I hope he will be able to come here and tell us things which he has done, and not merely to promise that something will be done after the war, because those promises are of the "jam to-morrow and never jam to-day" type, and they represent only hope deferred which makes the heart of the sailor sick.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: It is a pleasure to join in the congratulations to the Government on the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the New Ministry of Shipping. I was once connected with that industry, and I take particular pleasure and pride in the hon. Gentleman's appointment. I am looking forward to him as being in his new position a resolver of doubts and difficulties. Unquestionably there may be something of the Eastern magician in the part that he has to play, inasmuch as one matter which has occupied a great deal of the Debate to-day, namely, the proper payment for requisitioned tonnage, will probably be solved by a mere wave of his wand. He is evidently capable of doing it, for on the 31st of last month the hon. Gentleman asked the Minister of Shipping:
whether, in arranging with shipowners the terms of remuneration for requisitioned ships, he is proceeding on the principle of fixing terms which, with due regard to increased costs, will secure a normal rate of net profit on peace-time standards and no more?
Clearly the Parliamentary Secretary holds the key to this difficult problem, and if he is to be the spokesman for the Ministry to-night, he will resolve all the doubts which have animated each hon. Member who has spoken on the subject. The Minister of Shipping, in reply to that question, however, gave a somewhat cautious answer, for he said:
As I explained in the answer which I gave on 17th October to a question by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) rates of hire appropriate to the conditions of service will be paid in respect of merchant ships which have been requisitioned. I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion as to the basis on which he considers the rates should be fixed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1939; col 1750, Vol. 352.]
That was an excellent and cautious statement, which did not commit the Minister to anything too specific, waiting no doubt

for the good day that would dawn when the Parliamentary Secretary would solve that very simple problem. The position to-day is undoubtedly an unsatisfactory one from the shipowners' point of view, if the whole of the tramp tonnage, with which we are more largely concerned, is entirely requisitioned. Is that the case? I have heard, on the one hand, that only part of the tonnage is requisitioned, and, on the other hand, that the whole of every owner's fleet is requisitioned. On looking at some of the figures, I find that to the Plate the general rate is 203. outward, but homeward, for requisitioned tonnage, the Government are paying 32s. 6d. per ton, whereas neutrals are obtaining 55s. —a terrific difference. I am apprised by shipowners of, say, vessels of 6,500 tons dead weight, that they are actually losing money upon the voyages. They state that the normal time is 27 days, but that to-day, owing to diversions for coaling, awaiting convoy and instructions, and so forth, the time occupied is about 50 days. It can, therefore, easily be reckoned up that a very slender profit, if any, can be made on such voyages. It is the same in the coasting trade. Voyages from Newcastle to London and back are now taking three weeks instead of the customary two. That is a difficulty which will require to be closely looked into by the Minister.
The position offers itself for speculation as to what the basis of payment should be. Should our shipowners be permitted to accept rates which are quoted in the open market? I have no doubt that the Government say, "Emphatically no." If that were permitted it would have to be under some system in which the earnings should be garnished during the war and be under Government control. The dividends paid would have to be restricted and there would have to be the obligation to build fresh tonnage out of surplus earnings. That would not be unreasonable, for this is one of the vital defence services of the country. Then there might be controlled freights, of which we have had a sample, or there might be freights based upon the voyage cost, of which the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us. There could also be, as there was during the last war, the requisitioning of part only of a company's tonnage by the Government and the balance left to the open market. Lastly, we might be driven to requisition all tonnage, which would be virtually the


nationalisation of this industry. If it was desirable in the general interest to nationalise the railroads of the country, another service which is infinitely more important to the nation's safety might receive consideration, upon those lines unless some equitable arrangement or organisation can be effected to allow private ownership to continue, subject to such Government control as will preserve carefully the national interest.
I come next to the question of new tonnage, which has scarcely been touched upon in the Debate, although it is of supreme importance. Of late months I have been endeavouring to obtain information as to how much control there is in the building of new tonnage. We ought to know whether there is control of the materials required for the building or equipping of ships. I notice that Lord Essendon, who is the head of Furness Withy and Company and of the Prince Line, Limited, gave an illustration of the position yesterday at the annual meeting of the last named company. A new vessel had been lost. He said that it had been insured, as the owners thought very sagaciously, for 50 per cent. more than it cost recently, before the outbreak of the war, but the lowest quotation—and I can count upon Lord Essendon obtaining the lowest quotation—for a new vessel was 65 per cent. above the cost of the old one.
Will the Ministry inquire about the relative costs of ships built here and abroad? It is a question of importance financially, because we in our yards are building almost exclusively, if not exclusively— perhaps there is still a foreign vessel or two in building—for Government and private account. I tested the Ministry of Supply, who stated that while they control a certain proportion of the raw materials they do not control partially-manufactured raw materials. As we know, a crankshaft or a tailshaft is raw materia] in the construction of a steamship, and if that is not controlled by the Ministry of Supply, then I must inquire what Ministry does control prices. If they are left uncontrolled they will soar as high as freights do in war time. Ministers will, no doubt, remember that during the last war, though it was towards the end of it, the Government were driven to a control of prices, and to other forms of control, of certain non-ferrous metals and most

ferrous metals. We were driven to do so then, and perhaps we ought to consider action on the same lines now, not only on account of armaments but for the sake of safeguarding our food supplies and our export trade. If we permit the cost of ships to rise to phenomenal figures it will be impossible for the vessels of this country to compete with the cheaper tonnage held by neutrals, and I hope the Minister will make a note of that important question.
Then there is the question of war risk insurance as it affects coasting tonnage. I recently addressed a question to the Minister of Shipping upon this subject, because a serious situation prevails. I have a telegram from coasting owners in a large way of business indicating that as a result of the heavy additional cost of 15s. per cent. ad valorem upon all goods carried by the coasting trade where the vessels pass even a short distance only beyond the three-mile limit of territorial waters it is impossible to compete with either road or rail, and I have it on the best authority that no less than 40 per cent. of our coasting tonnage is laid up in port. In London, 12,000 dockers, stevedores and other men, are wholly unemployed on account of that, and there is a similar position in the other coasting ports of this country. It seems to me that that is a charge which ought to be borne under the Government scheme, as it is borne by the Government in the case of goods conveyed by rail or road or upon our rivers or on the high seas, provided it is within the three-mile territorial limit. Surely the fact that vessels pass a little outside the three-mile limit should not be a reason for the infliction of this great disability. The coasting section of our Mercantile Marine is as vital, in its way, to our safety and security in training youths and men for a maritime career as any other section, and in war time we ought not, for so slight a reason, to impose upon them that disability.
With regard to Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, we all know the mistake which was made, and which I believe the Government admit was a mistake, in permitting 40 per cent. of our shipyards which existed at the end of the last war to be closed. We now find that our tonnage is less by 1,500,000 to 1,750,000 tons than it was at the end of the last war, and that not only is our tonnage


being sunk but neutral tonnage also. We are deeply concerned with the position of neutral tonnage, because most of the friendly neutral tonnage is either operating free and carrying traffic in the main to this country or is in Government employ. Therefore, it is of vital importance that the Ministry of Shipping should look closely at the position in the great centres of shipbuilding in this country, and if it is found that we are not likely to be able to maintain the necessary weight of tonnage either in our own hands or in those of friendly neutrals, the Government ought at once to equip some of the old Shipbuilding Securities berths, as can still be done on the Tyne. While they were largely cleared of shipbuilding apparatus they were not entirely cleared, and could at relatively small cost be re-equipped. I think the Government might turn its attention to getting out the tonnage that is sheltering in the Baltic. I brought a British vessel out of Kronstadt in 1916. The Russian Admiralty made all the necessary arrangements and gave assistance in raising mines and giving a proper convoy, and subsequently a number of North country shipowners did the same thing. Is it not possible to pursue a similar line now? I have great hopes from releasing tonnage which wants to be released from the Baltic to assist us in crushing the enemy upon the high seas.
Attention was directed by the last speaker to the position of our officers and men in the Mercantile Marine. It is a melancholy thing to me that the masters' panel of the National Maritime Board is not operating. The reason, I am advised, is the opposition of the shipowners. They can do without the National Maritime Board's intervention so far as masters, of whom there is a plethora at the moment, are concerned. I hope the Minister will look upon himself as the shepherd of that flock, and see that they are protected to the extent that the panel which was set up on their behalf should be set to work forthwith. The coasting trade is a shocking scandal. It is no uncommon thing that men work 80 and 90 hours a week under the most strenuous war-time conditions.
There is no agreement as to hours and overtime. I have had cases brought to my notice at Newcastle in which the hours of officers and men alike are so great, the men receiving overtime, that their

Waées have exceeded the wages of the officers. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which no one desires. In one recent case the officers of a vessel engaged on national work, conveying explosives, made representations to the owners that they should have some recognition for the long hours that they were going to be called upon to work to carry this cargo where it had to go in the national interest. It was brusquely refused because there was no agreement with regard to officers as to special remuneration for any hours beyond those for which they had signed. The naval authorities suggested that these officers ought to receive extra payment not only for the excessive overtime but for the dangerous nature of the work. In one case a large part of a cargo exploded and a number of men were killed. One is inclined to imagine that the excessive labours that these officers were called upon to undertake under strenuous conditions, perhaps, contributed in some indirect way to the unfortunate accident. I think the new Ministry of Shipping has a noble part to play. I believe that in the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary we have two men upon whom the House and the country can rely to fulfil their solemn obligations to the full, and I believe success is bound to follow their efforts.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Last week during the discussion on rationing, the Lord Privy Seal made the remark that "the Germans will never starve the people: of this country," to which I interjected, "No but your gang will starve them." It is with this thought in mind that I would speak on this question of shipping. Sniping is of the greatest importance for the life and well-being of the people of this country. They are interested in shipping not only because it keeps the industrial organisations going which provide for the work on which they depend for their livelihood, but because it brings their food. They are especially interested in shipping from the point of view of food. The shipowners are interested in shipping not because it brings food, not because it brings in any particular commodity, but from the point of view of getting profits, and we have a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary who are here, no matter what sentiments they may have expressed in the past, to represent the interests of profit.


Let the Parliamentary Secretary take any step that interferes with the profits of the shipowners, and he knows where he will land. He will not take such steps. There can be nothing in common between the welfare of the people and the profits of the shareholders.
It has been said that the making of profits is itself in the interests of the masses of the people. It is not true. During the last war we had a terrible example of what profit-makers will do. I do not have to go into that, as it has been dealt with by the hon. Member for J arrow (Miss Wilkinson). We know also what happened after the war. Enormous fortunes were made. In an earlier speech I drew attention to a deal of the Runciman family. In 1922, they sold their Moor Line boats to the Western Counties Line at £22 per ton, then the latter firm went bankrupt and they bought them back at £4 per ton. That is the sort of thing that went on. Some of the greatest fortunes in this country represent the robbery of the people of this country, and yet millions of pounds have to be poured into the industry. Nobody with any sense of what constitutes the well-being of the people or with any sense of morality or decency could tolerate such a situation. Will the Minister of Shipping or the Parliamentary Secretary come out against the robbers? No, they will defend them.
We are concerned with food for the people—one of the most important things —and the livelihood of the seamen. Will the Minister of Shipping or the Parliamentary Secretary deny that the filthiest slums in this country are on the ships that go to sea? They are breeding dens of tuberculosis. I did not have much experience, but I went to sea for a time and I remember that when I was finished at night I could not go down the glory-hole. I had to sit on deck until I was completely exhausted, and when my senses were deadened I went down. The smell was thick and terrible. Maybe things have changed since then. Not a bit. I know a young lad in Glasgow, a medical student, who thought he would get a job on a ship during the summer. He joined a ship and he was sent down the glory-hole. But he came up in a hurry and went home as sick as he possibly could be; he never went back to the ship again.

Mr. Kirk wood: Was that a British ship?

Mr. Gallacher: Yes. An hon. Member on this side of the House suggested that the Minister should visit these ships. Two years ago I asked the Minister who was then responsible for shipping to visit the British ships and see the conditions under which the seamen had to exist. The conditions are absolutely unspeakable, but profits are made all the time. Somebody said that profits and the welfare of the people go together. Why did we have the destruction of the shipyards if profits and the welfare of the people go together? If you had the destruction of the shipyards you had also the destruction of steelworks, coal mines and cotton factories.
To-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer was paying tribute to Lord Stamp, and referred to the services that he could give us on the Advisory Committee on economy. Lord Stamp cannot give any service as far as economy is concerned, because he does not know anything about economy. If the Government want someone who can give advice on economy they should get someone who has made a study of Karl Marx. They would know this for a start, that in the days of Liberal capitalism—in the pre-monopoly era—capitalism was progressive in so far as it was advancing the forces of production. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say that capitalism in the monopoly stage advances the forces of production? No, it prevents production and destroys the forces of production. That is what Marx makes clear. Will the Members of this House not realise that capitalism as a system is in decay, and that it cannot assist the forces of production?
We have been discussing the shortage of shipping. Look at the opportunities in this country for building shipping. We have the space; look at the yards that we can get, and the labour that we can obtain. What have we been doing? We have been closing up yards and throwing men on to the Employment Exchanges. It is only as we understand the process that is going on that we can represent and care for the masses of the people in this country. The Minister of Shipping and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot do it, because they are not out to protect the people, but to protect profits. I say to every Member in this House and the people of this country that if shipping is to be developed as a great service for


the people, if the food of the people is to be brought into the country and the people to be cared for, this Government must be cleared out. This Government, which represents profits for all the evil elements in this country must go. Incidentally, it might be to the advantage of the Parliamentary Secretary if he cleared out before the evil got too far, because his present position will not result in anything to his credit. He cannot serve two masters; he cannot serve the people of this country and the profit-mongers who are represented by the shipowners. If we are concerned about the welfare of the people we must have a government who will take the people out of the war and put the profit-mongers out of business. That is the important thing. That is the way to guarantee food for the people and it is the way to guarantee the welfare of this country.
Of course, everybody says that he wants to be out of the war, but you can never be out of the war until you have a Government who will take the people out, and you will never get a Government who will take the people out except a Government who will take the profit-mongers out of business. That cannot be provided by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. They know that they cannot do anything about it. It will not be done by them but by the workers. I say to this House that our task is to build up in this country a great shipping industry that will be a great national service and not a means of creating swollen fortunes for a gang of robbers.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Mander: There is one point which I want to put to the Minister of Shipping, and it deals with a very important aspect of the problem of economic warfare. The war, clearly, is going to be won by the use of that most powerful weapon, and the Ministry of Shipping is an essential part of that weapon. I want to find out where the responsibility lies with regard to certain matters. Arising out of the economic problem there are, obviously, certain questions which, while not exactly conflicting with each other, require coordination; and I want to know where the Ministry of Shipping comes in in regard to the point to which I am going to refer. Suppose there is, somewhere in Europe, a river, or a sea in the neighbour-

hood of a river, where it is desirable to secure the shipping in order to prevent it being used by the enemy. It may be that that shipping would not necessarily be required for the transport of any materials. If it could be used to bring goods from some other country to Great Britain, so much the better; but it might be that there was no produce available, yet it was very important to prevent that shipping—perhaps river tankers, or something of that kind—falling into the hands of the enemy. The problem would be to tie up that shipping, so that no use could be made of it.
If a case of that kind arises—and I know that it does arise, because I have a specific example in mind—would it be the duty of the Minister of Shipping to deal with it, to make a decision and, by executive action, purchase or hire the shipping; or would it be a matter for the Minister of Economic Warfare, or possibly, if it was a case of bringing food, the Minister of Food? In the case to which I am really alluding, no use would be made of the shipping; and I want to know whether, in that case, the Minister of Shipping is the authority one should approach; or would the matter be referred to other Ministers and to some final coordinating authority? It is important that some clear-cut decision should be made about this, so that those interested in the perfecting of the economic machine should know to whom they ought to go. The important thing is to have it clearly stated where the decisive authority rests, so that we can be certain that in the Government there is somebody who is in a position to take immediate action on a question which may be of the greatest importance to this country in the prosecution of the war.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I have waited all day, not to speak but to hear the Minister make his debut in this entirely new part. I have seen him appear before the House in half-a-dozen different offices, and I liked him best in the first in which I saw him some years ago, as the Scottish Whip for the Government. There he remained completely silent. He seems to be adopting the same policy at the present time. I did not come to speak, but to hear his great oratory on this important subject for which he is now made responsible. I rise now only because he seems quite determined that he will not


get to his feet until the last and most insignificant utterance has been made; and I hope that this will be regarded as it. The right hon. Gentleman has now a most important office indeed. I hope he will take note of the tendency displayed by people in shipping to make a ramp out of the shipping business. I suggest that he should write one or two biographies of the shipbuilding profiteers of the last war. I remember one who sat in this House; he came in as a shipping millionaire, and told us how everybody who wished to be wealthy could be, if he put his mind to it, and that there was no need for anybody to be unemployed. He was a millionaire, on paper; and he finished in the bankruptcy court. A lot of others did so as well, while a Member of another place finished in prison as his enthusiasm for shipping developed on the balance sheets. It would be worth while for the Minister to point out that it is quite possible, in the midst of a nation's difficulties, for people holding the cornerstones of the nation's industries to make fabulous profits on paper, but that they should remember that there is an aftermath which is not such good fun as the period of bringing in the sheaves.
The points that I want to put are these. One relates to the question put by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) about the unused shipyard labour. I have taken the trouble to look up the latest figures available, those for September; and I find that there were something like 90,000 people in the shipbuilding and ancillary industries unemployed. I do not know the present figure, but there has been a substantial and distressing rise in the numbers of unemployed people in this country—a rise that the Minister of Labour will be called upon, I hope, to explain in this House at an early date. When one considers that more than 500,000 young men have been taken out of industry, either as conscripts or as reservists called up, it really means that at the outset of a war period, when manpower is required for a great multitude of civil purposes, we have very nearly 1,000,000 people actually coming out of productive work, instead of going into it.
I want the Minister of Shipping to find out what has taken place with regard to shipyard labour in that period. In reply to a question I put to-day, he told me that one-fifth of the commercial tonnage now under construction in the yards is for

direct Government orders. I want him to find out whether the other four-fifths, for private orders, is for shipping of a kind that is of the maximum value to the nation at present, and to see that in this period, when food-carrying is an essential point of national interest, shipyard labour and plant shall be used only for the construction of the ships which have the optimum value to the nation at the present time. I want to ask whether that one-fifth, which is presently being built to Government order, is likely, in the near future, to be an increasing figure. In my view there ought to be no difficulty in coping with this mercantile shipping problem. Some years ago, when unemployment on the Clyde was even worse than it is now, I took the trouble to go into it in some close detail, and I made the extraordinary discovery that the then available shipyard plant and shipyard labour, if employed to the maximum, could turn out sufficient tonnage in five years to replace the then existing Mercantile Marine. The productive power in the shipyards had come to such a stage that you could build a merchant fleet, modern and up to date, with greater speed, of the same tonnage as was existing, in a period of five years. The real problem for our shipbuilding towns and centres is that you can build as many ships as the nation wants in five years, and they will last for a maximum of 25 years, which means that your shipyards will have to stand by for the next 20 years until these ships have gone down before they are wanted again. It is a problem to which I cannot see an answer in the existing order of society, but in war-time it ought to mean that, without great difficulty and with a little push, any tonnage that you have lost can be very easily replaced in a matter of months, if your available plant is used to its maximum, and your available labour is not allowed to drift away from the shipyard into other openings, which no doubt will present themselves.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was telling me the other night, if I may use the information he gave me, that in his very highly skilled trade of pattern-making there has been in the last few months, in a trade where there has been a remarkable breakaway, a drifting back of members of his craft from all sorts of trades and industries, from small shopkeeping, from insurance and


from different things of that sort into which they had to go when trade was dull. There is a whole lot of shipyard labour that has gone away like that, and there is a whole lot still standing at the Employment Exchanges, and I ask the Minister of Shipping to see that shipyard labour, if he cannot use it all to-day or to-morrow, is used in the very shortest possible time. If he cannot use it now or in the immediate future, he should at least see that it is not dissipated and that it is kept for this very urgent purpose.
I do not want to say any more on the subject, except that I would like to add one word about the conditions of merchant seamen, and, in particular, about their wages and living conditions. Will the Minister see that in this war construction, allowing for all the difficulties and urgencies of the time, some thought will be given to the accommodation and general amenities of the men that are going to live on board the ships? That can be done perfectly well at this time without any waste of time or without any undue expense, and it can make all the difference between having healthy, happy and comfortable men and men who are living unhealthy and unhappy lives on top of very great danger.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: I am afraid I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) because it is only a Scot that can come between two fellow-Scotsmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) must be gratified with this Debate, which has ranged over a period of five hours, and has, in the seamen's language, provided a very good middle-watch. But it has undoubtedly, in view of the formation of the new shipping department, given an opportunity to review the situation in the light of the circumstances of the war. For that purpose it is certainly advisable that we should be able to adapt our outlook to these new conditions not only in the interests of the nation but in the interests of those who are engaged in the shipping industry.
The two main points that have been raised to-day and which have been mentioned by the majority of the speakers have been, first of all, the efficiency of the Mercantile Marine in these days and how it can be maintained, and, secondly,

which is equally as essential, the development of the emergency conditions that will have to be operated in shipbuilding and modern engineering. In consequence of those two factors, with the dangers and risks of the war—this country as an island may have to run great risks and dangers—if the Debate to-day focuses our minds upon how we can best utilise the resources of the nation for our protection, it will have been of some value. I do not intend to cover or to attempt to survey the whole of the ground that has been covered this afternoon. Not only should there be the maintenance of the fleet in the Mercantile Marine but the establishment of even better conditions on behalf of the officers and men of the Merchant Service. I speak as one of a seafaring family that appreciates what it means to them even in peace conditions without the hazards and risks which war brings in its train.
The hon. Member for Rotherbithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) reminded me of one aspect that he had overlooked in his very human appeal this afternoon, and that is the question of the ordinary regulation laid down in the maritime agreement with regard to the crews of ships that are limited to a 64-hour week, which, covering a seven-day week, runs out at over nine hours per day. Under normal conditions overtime rates are paid after 64 hours, but I have been asked to remind the new Minister of Shipping that, unfortunately, some of the shipowners are claiming that war conditions are an emergency and that overtime should not operate. Whatever may have been the intention behind the maritime rates, as confirmed by agreement, surely war-time conditions are the last thing that would be intended to be brought in as justifying this claim of the shipowners, particularly under the conditions which preve.il to-day. No doubt the Minister will verify this matter, and instances can be given with regard to it.
With regard to the two points that I have mentioned, in regard to maintenance and rebuilding, it must have been impressed upon the Minister that there are idle hands and idle yards which could turn out the equivalent of all the tonnage that may be sunk in this war, and could help to re-equip us with a better Mercantile Marine than ever we have had. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and


the Parliamentary Secretary will take full advantage of the powers bestowed upon them in the new Ministry to see that the output of tonnage is maintained and that we shall finish the war with a better mercantile fleet than when we started.
There is one further aspect of the question, which I presume comes under the new Ministry, to which I should like to refer. I refer to the fishing fleet, which I suppose comes under the right hon. Gentleman's control. He will be aware that certain legislation was passed during the last Session which brought into operation the Sea Fish Act. There were many circumstances that necessitated that Act, but under the conditions of war some of them have had to be postponed from corning into operation. I know that the Sea Fish Commission has been suspended for the time being, but it does not necessarily follow that we should not look to the sea fish arm without some degree of beneficence so far as their labours are concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty is present, and probably he will confirm the fact that within recent weeks the subject of the fishing fleet has caused much concern to the Admiralty and other Departments. I am assured that at a conference recently held, of which the First Lord of the Admiralty was chairman, steps were taken to rehabilitate the fishing industry from the position created by the temporary taking over of the personnel and the trawlers that had been fishing from our home ports. Probably as a legacy that will be left from the Admiralty, a promise was given that the necessary steps would be taken for re-equipping the trawler fleet even in this time of war. I understand that it is probable that we shall have a standardised vessel, and that there is no desire, for the immediate necessities of the Admiralty, that we should be deprived of the fleet which is essential for bringing foodstuffs for the people of the country.
There is one aspect of it which, probably, has not been fully considered yet. At the conference, which was representative not only of the trawler owners but the fishermen themselves, it must have been in the minds of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the officers of his Department, as it certainly must be in the mind of the Minister of Shipping, that for the provision of the need fleet there

must be some responsibility with regard to the cost and the equipment of that fleet. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) has said to-day that the charges for building ships had increased enormously, and that the shipping interests were looking with some concern as to what the cost would be if the continual rise is allowed to go on. From that point of view I trust that the burden of building the fleet will not be put upon the fishing industry. It is the one industry in which the crews and officers of the trawlers are still partners in the industry, and entirely dependent on the catch which they bring into our ports. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to pass this burden on to the men engaged in the industry whether they are owners or the crews. I trust that the Debate has been of such a nature that the Minister will be able to visualise that, however short or long the conditions of war may continue, he must still see to the personnel, the equipment and the maintenance of the fishing fleet, which is so essential to the well-being of the country as a whole.

9.38 p.m.

The Minister of Shipping (Sir John Gilmour): The House will agree with me when I say that on the subject of shipping we have had a not uninteresting and, if I may say so as Minister, a helpful discussion. I appreciate the tone and temper which the House has chosen to use on this occasion, and I re-echo those expressions of good will towards my hon. Friend who has undertaken to work with me. I welcome his assistance, and I trust that with the valuable experience he gained in the last war we may be able to meet the difficulties which lie ahead of us. This is a large field and perhaps the House will forgive me if I do not go into every detail. I can assure hon. Members who have raised particular points that they will be most carefully looked at and considered. We have succeeded to a Department which was started originally in the Board of Trade, carrying on in peace-time a very large part of the necessary organisation for the well-being of the industry and having established machinery for dealing with a great variety of problems which affect the industry and the personnel. One of the first things which I did when I took over this office was to find out for myself what


was the skilled advice which I could depend upon in dealing with problems which I realised to be very highly technical; and in that regard, I have listened to certain criticisms to-day as to whether the Ministry has at its disposal those who are skilled in shipping and shipbuilding. I am satisfied that we have got that advice and that support, and I believe that it will be found, as time goes on, that as and when it is necessary to strengthen the Ministry in any way, the opportunity-will be taken to do so.
The broad duties of the Ministry of Shipping are to deal with the control of ships of great variety and character, pursuing in peace time a great variety of different trades, and enedavouring to find a practical scheme which will take the fullest advantage of all these varieties of shipping for the common purpose of serving the country and the Empire in this time of war. It is with that desire that those who were responsible in the Board of Trade, before the Ministry of Shipping was created, took certain steps for the preliminary organisation of the Ministry. Among other things, I would emphasise particularly that it was recognised by everybody concerned that one essential thing was to prevent a disproportionate rise in rates of freight and to prevent, by practical methods, a repetition of what has been repeatedly referred to in the House to-day, that is to say, unfair and excessive profits by any part of the industry. I do not think we shall be faced with some of the difficulties we were faced with in the last war. Some of the conditions are quite emphatically different, and at any rate, I can assure the House that this main principle is the principle of the Government and of the Ministry of which I am in charge, to see that in so far as it is humanly possible we shall endeavour to give to those who are serving the country a reasonable and proper return for expenses incurred and prevent any improper profits being made.
I will add that in the main I think that has already been achieved, but I think it is clear that, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, when one comes to deal with the delays which are inevitable under war conditions, when one has to face the convoy system and the diversion of ships from ports on one side of the country to those on another side, one inevitably places a greater strain and a

greater expense upon those who are responsible for managing the ships and a greater strain upon the crews. It is for that reason that my Department has recently issued a notice which has told those connected with British shipping that we are prepared to reconsider the rates of freight, and that reconsideration is now in progress. On this great main question, let me say that we desire to do this work, as far as we may, with the assistance of the practical people upon whom we depend to carry out the duties which we have asked them to perform. For that reason we shall discuss these problems with those who are concerned and, if we can get an amicable arrangement, so much the better.
We are dealing with shipping by two methods. One is the system of shipping licences and the other is requisitioning. As I understand the problem, we have, so far, used requisitioning in the main and perhaps entirely, for supplying that form of shipping which has to carry out the work of the fighting services. If I may say so, it appears to me that the work of transporting our armed forces across the Channel, with all the subsidiary duties which have been imposed upon the captains and crews of the ships, has been performed in a very excellent manner. It has led, naturally, to a great interference, even in some cases with the structure of the ships, because of the necessity of making special provision for such things as the heavy mechanical vehicles which form such a large part of the army. I think I should fail to do what I desire to do if I did not express appreciation on an occasion like this of the readiness and rapidity with which all the workers in the yards undertook the duties which they were called upon to perform at very short notice, and the very good way in which that work was done.
I have referred to the problems and the difficulties of the convoy system. I think I am right in saying that the House is in agreement with the system and regards it as a proper system to be used, because it gives security to the ships and to the cargoes which they carry. Perhaps it may interest the House to know that 3,070 ships have been convoyed under the system, and that only seven ships out of that total were lost. That is. I think, a striking example of the co-operation between the Navy and the Mercantile


Marine. There is, of course, another side to that success. There have been delays, there have been difficulties in connection with some of the duties which shipping is asked to perform.
Let me refer for one moment to the problem of coal. I have listened carefully to what hon. Members on both sides have had to say on this subject and I appreciate the fact that the problem of finding a quicker and a better solution of the delays connected with the carrying of coal is an urgent one. But I can say to the House that this question has not been un-thought of and the situation is, I hope, being improved. Already arrangements are being made to increase the number of convoys and I trust that as we are able, gradually, to get more escorts there will be a great improvement. Then there is not only the hope of getting an outlet for coal, for ordinary internal purposes in this country, but there is, undoubtedly, an opportunity which I hope will increase, of sending coal to neutrals. On that subject of neutrals, I will only say that it is hoped that we shall gradually obtain larger assistance from neutral tonnage, but there are demands, which one can understand, and which have to be met in regard to the neutral freights. At the same time, I look forward hopefully to an improvement in that situation.
Reference was made to the bringing of cereals to this country. I am well aware of the difficulties of these problems, and for the present it is clear that we must concentrate upon making use of whatever shipping we can command on the shorter routes rather than on the longer routes. For that reason we have been able to set aside a considerable number of ships to bring us cereals from Canada before the St. Lawrence is frozen up. That is in progress now, and I trust that it will be found to be of considerable advantage in the months ahead of us.
There was raised the question of shipbuilding, and it is, of course, at once clear that we must make up our minds to make use of every available building yard in this country. I am very well aware of the criticism which over a number of years has taken place about this or that yard being closed. In so far as I am concerned, and as indeed this House is concerned, we are in a position to-day of having to deal with the problem as we rind it, and it is, therefore, essential

that we should so lay our plans as to take the best advantage of all skilled enterprise and of every possible productive yard. There is, of course, a heavy claim upon our building capacity on the part of the Navy, but at the same time I would like to say a word of thanks to the President of the Board of Trade, who at an early stage took steps to ensure that a proportion of whatever was available should be set aside for the purpose of meeting the shipping programme other than that of Naval production. That has been done.
One hon. Member to-night raised the question as to whether we were going to give orders in Canada, and I think he said he understood that orders to build ships in Canada had actually been given. I am not aware that that is yet the fact. It is true that in the last war there were ships built in Canada, and it may well be that we shall find some opportunity of getting that done again. That means that we have in this country orders which will occupy in the main all available yards for production.

Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has not yet made up his mind to give orders for certain ships to Canada?

Sir J. Gilmour: I will make very careful inquiries, but no order has yet been placed in Canada, though it may be that something of that kind may be done.

Sir P. Harris: Would such orders be given by the Ministry of Shipping or by private companies? If they were given by the Ministry of Shipping, surely the Minister must have knowledge of it?

Sir J. Gilmour: That again is a matter which has to be explored but so far as the Ministry is concerned, as far as my information goes, although I am always willing to be corrected, no order of this kind has been placed.

Mr. Shinwell: Try the Ministry of Information.

Sir J. Gilmour: With regard to the problem of freight rates—

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to get over the conditions that were set down by Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, that the yards could not be opened inside 40 years?

Sir J. Gilmour: We are living in time of war and in circumstances in which whatever may have been said in previous years can be reviewed. I go into this problem with an open mind, and if there is a demand to build in some disused yard or on some site where a yard has ceased to exist for a time, I must be satisfied, first, that the yard is available and can be developed, and, second, that there is a possibility of securing labour of the skilled kind able to do the job and to do it quickly. Under these conditions I am prepared to investigate any of these suggestions.

Mr. Shinwell: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of replacement of shipping, can he give some indication as to the type of shipping which he contemplates, so far as he exercises control. Will he do something to avoid the indiscriminate construction of tonnage, some of which may be of no value for the purposes he has in view?

Sir J. Gilmour: Yes, certainly, and for that purpose there is a special department in my office which is studying this problem. I am aware that in the last war there was a great deal of building done and that some of the ships, when the war ceased, were not the most suitable for competing with other nations and retaining their place in commerce. Undoubtedly, it is essential that in any construction movement which is to be put forward the type of ship must be such that it is not only capable of carrying what we require during the war, but, after the war, can be used, altered or modified if necessary, with advantage in the trade of the world.
The House may feel assured that we have practical people advising us on this problem. I agree with those who have said that in the construction policy great care must be taken to see that the accommodation for the crew and those who have to work the ships is reasonable and fair. I have been interested in one aspect of this matter. With modern developments communications with a large number of ships has to be done by wireless. One of the first things that was brought to my notice when I went to the Ministry was the necessity of trying to improve that communication. I am happy to say that I think we are now well on the way to being able to replace the conditions which existed on a considerable number

of ships, where there was only one wireless operator. Steps have been taken in conjunction with those who can give us the best advice, both shipowners and representatives of the officers and men, to increase the number to two, and, as far as possible, to make the accommodation suitable. Hon. Members will understand that in some of the smaller ships it is not possible to give the same kind of accommodation as would be absolutely essential in peace-time, but, on the other hand, I am convinced that from the point of view of the security of the ship, the well-being of the crew and the proper running of the service this step will be of material advantage.
Let me say a word about the Advisory Council. I felt very strongly that it was essential that I should have at my service to advise me those who have practical knowledge and with whom I could have conferences. At the present time conferences are taking place once a week, and at them I have found a complete readiness to assist not only on the part of the shipowners but of those who speak for all the interests of the crews. Incidentally, the new arrangement about wireless was raised at the first of those conferences. I think the House will agree that I have set up a council upon which both sides of this industry are equally represented. It does not, of course, attempt in any way to override or to take over the ordinary machinery which has long been in existence for settling any difficulties and disputes between owners and crews, but at any rate it provides the opportunity for raising any questions which they desire to bring forward, and I am most grateful to its members for the way in which they have assisted me.
It is clear that the conditions of war, the delays arising from convoy have lessened the ability of our merchant fleets to carry out without great interruption the work which we desire them to perform, but I am in the position to say, after discussions with the First Lord, that I think we shall be able to hasten many of the convoys, and that being so there should be considerable advantages. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite says, "Stand up." I have always found the First Lord one with whom I could work and to whom I could speak perfectly frankly, and I am certain that I am being met in a very proper naval


spirit in regard to all these problems, and I trust that the result will be of advantage to all.
Another point was raised about the fishing fleet. As I understand it, the control of the fishing fleet remains with the Ministers responsible, that is to say with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and with the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the other hand, of course, some of these ships are being used by the Admiralty. I will make the closest inquiry into the problems which have been mentioned, and I am satisfied that we shall be able to give the fishing fleets a fair deal. It is-essential that we should keep this country as well supplied with fish as possible, and I feel that concessions have already been made by the Admiralty which will permit of that being done.
I was asked a question about the control of materials. That is again a matter that is of the greatest importance from the shipbuilding point of view, and it is being gone into most closely by the coordination committees which are dealing with these matters. I think every practical step is being taken to see that that is carried out.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific point that I put with regard to the responsibility of the Minister of Shipping, if it is his responsibility, for controlling of tankers and shipping on rivers which might not be employed and might have to be laid up?

Sir J. Gilmour: I understand that that is a matter for the Department of Economic Warfare.

Mr. Mander: Quite recently I was informed by the Ministry of Economic Warfare that it was a matter for the Ministry of Shipping. I do not know or care which Ministry it belongs to but the House and the country would like a definite decision as to who is responsible.

Sir J. Gilmour: I will communicate with my hon. Friend who is responsible for that Department and will go into the matter at once, as I realise the importance of it. I hope the House will believe that, whatever mistakes we may make, or may have made, we are all of us at the Ministry of Shipping desirous of giving our very best service at this time to the country and, above all, we recognise that, if that service is to be in any way effective, it must be done with the good will and the support of every one of the executive officers, engineers or deck hands or whatever else they may be, and it is on that ground that I hope we shall get the confidence of the whole service and, I trust, be able to give a good account of ourselves in the weeks and months that lie ahead of us.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not given one specific answer to any one specific question that has been put?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Ten o'Clock.